A thoughtful piece. I grew up fifty years before you in downstate Illinois, and I can relate to the conservative background that you cite. My first vote for a president went to a Republican—Richard Nixon. While I have voted for other Republicans for various offices, that was also my last vote for a G.O.P. presidential candidate.

There was a time that I might have described myself as you did: fiscally conservative but liberal on social issues. Today, I canʻt really say that I know what those labels mean: a Republican conservative used to be a person who wanted to lower the national debt, spend in a prudent manner, and promote a strong national defense in concert with our allies. He or she acknowledged that we faced serious challenges—lingering racism and climate change among them—but sought solutions that brought the public and private sectors together and was wary of expensive government programs that increased the power of the federal government at the expense of the states. That isnʻt where the G.O.P. Is today, and I no longer know what a moderate Republican would look like.

Frankly, I am less worried about ʻextremismʻ on the left because genuine radicals (even of the Bernie Sanders type) are essentially the American equivalent of European social democrats, and given the fundamental conservatism of the American electorate it is unlikely that we will ever see them controlling both houses of Congress (with a filibuster proof majority in the senate, as well as the Oval Office).

What I would urge you to keep an eye on is this: does the candidate and or party that you are considering genuinely support democracy—or not. A couple of examples:

Both parties say, in their platforms, that they support statehood for Puerto Rico if and when the majority of Puerto Ricans want it. Nearly three million American citizens live on that island which has been a U.S.possession for 124 years. They have now voted for statehood, but Mitch McConnell refuses to bring statehood up for debate in the senate. Why? Because he is convinced that Puerto Ricans would favor the Democrats. So he would deny millions of Anericans the right to vote for the nationʻs leader because he fears they would opt for the ʻwrongʻ person. Is that democracy?

Both parties once agreed that “elections matter,” and they generally allowed the president to appoint judges of his choice, provided that they met the qualifications of the office and subscribed to mainstream judicial philosophies. It was not unusual for a supreme court nominee to be confirmed by an “up” vote of 80 to 90 senators. But when president Obama, with a full year left in office, sent a nominee over to the senate, the G.O.P. wouldnʻt even allow a discussion—instead, they let the clock run out. Again, is that democracy?

I think the national Republican leadership is committed to clinging to power, whatever it takes. But a belief in majority rule?

Not so much. And that scares the hell out of me.