By Michael Goldman

The year was 1964, and in America there was a battle for the heart, head and soul of the Republican Party, which somehow found itself divided into myriad splintered ideologies.

The liberal wing of the party, broadly labeled the "Rockefeller Republicans," was represented in the primaries by both liberal New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller and liberal Pennsylvania Gov. William Scranton.

The middle of the spectrum, labeled the "sensible center" by some, was represented by Michigan Gov. George Romney and former Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, who had just returned to America after a stint working for the opposition Democratic Party as U.S. ambassador to the Republic of South Vietnam (yes, back then you could work for the opposing party without being labeled anything other than a good public citizen).

The hero of the right and eventual party nominee was Arizona U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater, who eventually was the landslide loser in the final election to incumbent Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. Running against both the ghost of JFK as well as the tide of history, Goldwater's right-wing foreign policy -- the nuclear bomb was "just another weapon" -- and right-wing positions on integration and Social Security caused him to suffer one of the worst electoral defeats in American presidential history.

The year is 2013, and the Republican Party has no myriad of splintered ideologies. Some would also say it also has no heart, head or soul. Instead, the party is divided into two camps: the hard right and the hard-hard right.

Diversity inside today's GOP entity is delineated by either adherence to an activist view of foreign policy (the Neocon wing) or an isolationist view of foreign policy (the tea-party wing).

As a matter of ideology and policy, however, both wings favor ending a women's right to choose.

Both wings also favor the unfettered right to obtain and own as many weapons as an individual can afford to purchase.

Both wings question the validity of global warming, science, government regulation and Darwinism.

Both strongly oppose the immediate implementation of equal pay for equal work, while both also oppose any new taxation on the so-called 1 percent.

Both oppose Obamacare and both favor its immediate repeal.

Both think that despite the writings of our nation's founders, and the admonition in the Constitution to perpetuate a clear separation of church and state, that America was conceived as a "Christian nation."

Finally, while both wings claim they are neither racist nor sexist, both venerate the so-called "fallacy of the innocent past," which strongly posits that today's diverse multicultural society pales in comparison to a time not that long ago when men ruled the roost; women didn't work; gays were in the closet; and affirmative action was not the established law of the land.

Yet, despite all the issues that unite them, it's the two things separating them that drive the 2016 primary battlefields and ultimately will determine the eventual party nominee.

While the hard right genuinely believes all the things mentioned above, and will say so strongly during the primaries, if successful they will be loath to aggressively push those same beliefs in the final election cycle out of fear that the large "independent center" which participates in the presidential balloting will reject them as too extreme on social issues.

The hard, hard right believes it is this fear of pushing these social issues that cost both John McCain and Mitt Romney electoral victories in 2008 and 2012.

Thus, if the hard, hard right candidate survives the Republican primaries, the social issues won't be shunted aside, but rather will be front and center as a rationale for their candidacy. 

Second, the hard right also believes in and will continue to promote an activist foreign policy similar to those pursued under the leadership of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

The hard, hard right believes the less the U.S. engages in any foreign entanglements anywhere in the world, the better.

Enter neo-conservative Republicans New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush versus tea-party-friendly GOPers Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio.

Somewhere, Hillary Clinton and a lot of other Democrats are smiling.
