So, a big tent encompassing contradictory positions/preferendcesor narrow one built around ideological purity?
Here’s a question for the narrow tent people. The American Social Security system is an example of government coercion. You have no choice about taking part. It’s certainly not something that the Founding Fathers would have embraced.
So: will an ideologically-pure Republican (or Patriot) Party call for its termination? It could be done: return to everyone the money they have put in, but keep paying (until they die) anyone who is now getting Social Security payments (if that’s not too much of a socialist compromise). Let the upcoming generations take care of preparing for their old age on their own, the way it was done before FDR came along.
So: for, or against, Social Security? [Note that proposing to abolish Social Security will almost certainly mean you won’t have Mr Trump for your leader.]
And while we’re at it, what about my right, as a manufacturer, to buy and sell where I please? Will the new, or purged, Party let the state decide with whom I can trade? Or will it trust the market?
By the way, I don’t think that the causation was: mainstream churches water down their religion – for instance, saying that Adam and Even did not actually exist --, causing their congregations to leave. It’s actually the other way around, mainly.
As the general population becomes less interested in organized religion, the mainstream churches try to keep up with them by adopting more and more of their world-view and morals. Of course some people who were adherents of the mainstream churches will transfer their allegiance to the more traditional ones, but this is a minority.
We have to ask why belief in organized religion is declining. The traditional answer was that this is a consequence of the growth of science, which provides better answers to questions like what is lightning, or what causes disease, or where we came from. [Someone said that religion lost the battle between science and religion when churches put up lightning rods.]
However, another explanation is that it has been the growth of a feeling of security that has done it. [https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2020-08-11/religion-giving-god] I’m agostic on this.
A separate issue is what effect this will have, has had, on society, with respect to things that both believers and non-believers think are good. Dostoevsky arged that ‘Without God, all things are possible’, and watching the proliferation and mainstreaming of weird sexual practices, all of which undermine the family, it’s hard to disagree with him, although I don’t think they are the main cause of the fading of the family as a social institution.