Politics has more than two directions to go in.

"Conservative"..

"Reactionary" ...

"Progressive"...

Even these terms are stuck in a "forward" or "back" dichotomy. There's all kinds of shit out there that we could be using and endorsing to benefit ourselves. Our country and race and civilization. Etc.

Another metric is:

the size of the government overall vs size of various agencies?

Because usually, debt goes up no matter who in in the Oval Office, it's just a matter of what programs are funded, right? "Historically Black Colleges" (where CRT is the norm) versus "Defense" and border security.

Republicans have a severe image problem. A branding issue that you can see at every convention. DNC is going nuts with million dollar graphics and top selling music artists (attracting the youth, etc) and RNC is like a geriatric home with a few white haired couples trotting about.

"Republicans" kneecap themselves by non investing in media, in any programs for fellow citizens. A short-term gain for the rich but come off viewed as greedy. Democrats tax and then spend that money on media, programming, curricula, etc that penetrates society and affects metapolitics. Google was at Obama's White House, on average, once a week!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-makes-most-of-close-ties-to-white-house-1427242076

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/

And now the DNC and Big tech are controlling the meta-narrative of most of the country. because they understand that "politics is downstream of culture" and that most people have made up their minds about which party to belong to long before debates and etc, really just because "who seems cool."

See: "The Righteous Mind", by Jonathan Haidt.

https://ibb.co/R0wyKcN

Basically, people are irrational.

As far as trying new things when you're losing ground...hell, even the "New Right" [sic] is learning from Marxists and using a variety of tactics. Embracing much more than their low-IQ American counterparts.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Droite

The ND opposes multiculturalism and the mixing of different cultures within a single society, opposes liberal democracy and capitalism, and promotes localised forms of what it terms "organic democracy", with the intent of rooting out elements of oligarchy. It pushes for an "archeofuturistic" or a type of non-reactionary "revolutionary conservative" method to the reinvigoration of the Pan-European identity and culture, while encouraging the preservation of certain regions where Europeans and their Caucasian descendants may reside. Concurrently, it attempts to sustain the protection of the variance of ethnicities and identities around the globe, defending the right of each group of peoples to keep their own lands and regions to occupy. To achieve its goals, the ND promotes what it calls "metapolitics", seeking to influence and shift European culture in ways sympathetic to its cause over a lengthy period of time rather than by actively campaigning for office through political parties.

Metapolitics:

Daniel Friberg has stated that "Metapolitics on the other hand refers to a kind of action aimed at changing the political tendencies of individuals, by changing the worldview of society as a whole. The strategy of metapolitics, as I outline in my book, originated with the work of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist who wrote a series of notebooks while in prison in Fascist Italy, in which he concluded that communism had failed in Italy because it had occupied itself too much with politics and not enough with culture. This insight led to the development of the Frankfurt School and all the epochal changes which that School brought. The strategies and the tools of metapolitics can and must be used by the Right as well, and this includes work on many different levels – everything from publishing the kinds of books that Small Beer offers, to providing podcasts, articles and interviews like the present one, to having debates with your family and friends, to trolling on the internet. What is important is that everyone finds a way of joining the struggle, whether publicly or privately, to shift the present worldview."

Remember when "the Left" was anti-globalist?

Anti-corporate? Why was there no cross "L v R" unity supporting Trump, one of the most politically "mixed" candidates ever who opposed globalism?

More:

All the political systems of the modern age have been the products of three distinct ideologies: the first, and oldest, is liberal democracy; the second is Marxism; and the third is fascism. The latter two have long since failed and passed out of the pages of history, and the first no longer operates as an ideology, but rather as something taken for granted. The world today finds itself on the brink of a post-political reality - one in which the values of liberalism are so deeply embedded that the average person is not aware that there is an ideology at work around him. As a result, liberalism is threatening to monopolise political discourse and drown the world in a universal sameness, destroying everything that makes the various cultures and peoples unique. According to Alexander Dugin, what is needed to break through this morass is a fourth ideology - one that will sift through the debris of the first three to look for elements that might be useful, but that remains innovative and unique in itself. Dugin does not offer a point-by-point program for this new theory, but rather outlines the parameters within which it might develop and the issues which it must address. Dugin foresees that the Fourth Political Theory will use the tools and concepts of modernity against itself, to bring about a return of cultural diversity against commercialisation, as well as the traditional worldview of all the peoples of the world - albeit within an entirely new context. Written by a scholar who is actively influencing the direction of Russian geopolitical strategy today, The Fourth Political Theory is an introduction to an idea that may well shape the course of the world's political future. Alexander Dugin (b. 1962) is one of the best-known writers and political commentators in post-Soviet Russia. In addition to the many books he has authored on political, philosophical and spiritual topics, he currently serves on the staff of Moscow State University, and is the intellectual leader of the Eurasia Movement. For more than a decade, he has also been an advisor to Vladimir Putin and others in the Kremlin on geopolitical matters, being a vocal advocate of a return of Russian power to the global stage, to act as a counterweight to American domination.

http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=558DD9D2CAE5FF4A646E9B6D68BF3EE1

And:

Robert Anton Wilson's "Left and Right: A Non-Euclidean Perspective"

Wilson favored a form of basic income guarantee; synthesizing several ideas under the acronym RICH. His ideas are set forth in the essay "The RICH Economy," found in The Illuminati Papers. In an article critical of capitalism, Wilson self-identified as a "libertarian socialist", saying that "I ask only one thing of skeptics: don't bring up Soviet Russia, please. That horrible example of State Capitalism has nothing to do with what I, and other libertarian socialists, would offer as an alternative to the present system." By the 1980s he was less enthusiastic about the socialist label, writing in Prometheus Rising that he "does not like" the spread of socialism. In his book Right Where You Are Sitting Now, he praises the georgist economist Silvio Gesell. In the essay Left and Right: A Non-Euclidean Perspective, Wilson speaks favorably of several "excluded middles" that "transcend the hackneyed debate between monopoly Capitalism and totalitarian Socialism"; he says his favorite is the mutualist anarchism of Benjamin Tucker and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, but he also offers kind words for the ideas of Gesell, Henry George, C. H. Douglas, and Buckminster Fuller. Wilson also identified as an anarchist and described his belief system as "a blend of Tucker, Spooner, Fuller, Pound, Henry George, Rothbard, Douglas, Korzybski, Proudhon and Marx." Wilson spoke several times at conventions of the American Libertarian Party. He included Benjamin Tucker's Instead of a Book, Henry George's Progress and Poverty, and Gesell's The Natural Economic Order in a list of 20 book recommendations, "the bare minimum of what everybody really needs to chew and digest before they can converse intelligently about the 21st Century."

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-anton-wilson-left-and-right-a-non-euclidean-perspective

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Gesell

The sky is the limit. Why we stick to the same terms of 200 years ago...and let Democrat academics define us into a shitty corner, I have no idea. That's all.