Anyway, one thing that dawned on me at the Family Leader Forum the other night is that it is now a capital mistake to believe that conservative extremism is in any way incoherent or divided in the most basic articles of its faith. What once was considered beyond the pale now has set up shop in the town square. What were once backburner reactionary notions are now absolute litmus tests. And I'm not talking about individual issues, like reproductive choice or the bloated military budget, I'm talking about a fundamental philosophy of how the Republic is supposed to function. And there's no camouflage left to it.

For example, the Republican party is now a pure Tenther party. There was a time when Tentherism was a fringe movement within the party. Its devotion to states rights once was a more general attitude that was applied to specific policies and programs that were unpopular to the rising conservative mind. It was a useful tool to be used to monkeywrench certain liberal priorities at the state level. Now, there is a general agreement among the remaining presidential candidates that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is completely dispositive in resolving almost all of the questions regarding the role of the federal government. (That it is an unspoken truth within conservatism that the federal government is inherently inept is a theological belief that dates from Saint Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Address.) Tangled up in this are all sorts of longtime conservative policy prescriptions, many of which, like block-granting federal money to the states, have been tried and failed. But the now-dominant Tenther philosophy is drawn from a view of the Constitution that can best be described as Lochner-Scalian—a combination of a pre-New Deal view of the federal government and the kind of convenient "strict constructionism" beloved of Antonin (Short-Time) Scalia. Indeed, as part of his stump speech, Marco Rubio regularly wishes for nine Scalias on the Court. He also denies that the Constitution is in any way a living document. It is what it says it is, although he's willing to accept the fact that the amendments count, too, including, presumably, the 13th, 14th and 15th.

On Friday night, every single candidate expressed the view that the Supreme Court's role in constitutional questions is largely an advisory one. Mike Huckabee stated flatly that a president simply should ignore Supreme Court decisions with which the president disagrees. Naturally, because this was the hay-shaking Bible-banging crowd, the discussion took place within the context of the Supreme Court's decision in favor of marriage equality earlier this year.

...

These are no longer fringe views. They are the essence of modern Republican party political thought, and they brook no deviation from any politician who wants to succeed as a Republican. (Here's where I point out that Louisiana just elected a pro-gun-rights, anti-choice Democratic candidate to be its governor.) There is a "definitional debate" that is going on right now. What is being defined is the country itself.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39930/ted-cruz-no-fringe-republicans/