>republicans are a mix of libertarians, conservatives and moderates. >only thing linking them together are the “leave me alone” argument. That’s why I’m not co

>republicans are a mix of libertarians, conservatives and moderates. >only thing linking them together are the “leave me alone” argument. That’s why I’m not concerned about women’s choice I think you're confusing ideologies with practice. Ideologues in the coalition you reference find a home in the Republican party in our binary system, because of the traditional Republican brand. But, the real ethos and practice of the party itself are decidedly not one of "leave me alone". Women's choice is actually one of the more prominent indicators of this, and recent action in Republican-led Texas on that issue is a harbinger. The party also routinely lobbies against equal rights for "outgroups", proposes book bans, and answers dissenting voices with vitriol, hostility and (recently) violence. I've also never seen the modern party rally for free speech with which it did not agree. 1A arguments are instead most-often wielded when defending itself against those who find its positions to be repressive towards other groups (ironically). Aside: I've earnestly never understood how libertarians reconcile the party's staunch opposition to gay marriage, women's reproductive rights, etc. with a "leave-me-alone" worldview. In any case, it seems the true underlying theme of the party is the imposition of its will and enforcement of its regime, resulting in a "very particular brand of freedom". So, I'm not convinced that a convention of states (where that party is influential) would reflect anything but that.