To this point of controlled opposition, the problem is that the right has constituted now sucks at governing and frankly prefers to be in perpetual opposition. Then it doesn't have to take responsibility for anything, can block the other side and reap the political rewards for doing so.
The NRA, Rush (I hope he recovers despite my differences with him), the think tanks and pressure groups take in millions of dollars when a Democrat is President. A Democratic President is great for "their business", which is milking off the top of conservative outrage. This creates a perverse incentive to not cooperate but to impede the overall success of the movement and thereby create a group of devoted followers who are scared and frightened to the point that they willing part with their money so can Wayne La Pierre can build another palatial office.
If the Republicans and the Conservative movement had a tangibly-positive, center-right governing agenda then it would not have to worry about "OMG are we just controlled opposition?" It is funny you mention being generals in a game, because that question reminds me of the question, "Are we all just in one big computer simulation"?
Center right because I don't think extremism is healthy for our system long term. You can argue over where to draw the lines yes, but there are some things that require a balance and the right's answers to aren't the best. A good example from before is banking regulation.
Well to the right of center right isn't necessarily extreme. I wasn't saying every far right viewpoint is good either. Just that most politicians who are considered center right usually cave to the left on what's important. I am far more willing to compromise on economics for example. My position on bank regulation is actually that we need significantly more. Everyone here is calling me far right but my views are far more nuanced and add up to be, ironically, center right.
