A graphic portrayal of Republicans.

Here's an interesting NYT graphic attempting to represent the groups within the Republican Party. The sizes of the various elephants are supposed to represent their "relative dominance," and I'm not sure if that's a reference to the numbers of voters or some other aspect of political power. The Times invites arguments over the accuracy of this representation, and I'm sure they will get it. The graphic seems designed to make people like me -- who identify only with the "Security Coalition" group -- feel we should distance ourselves from a party that has very little to do with what we care about.

Here's the Adam Nagourney article that goes along with the graphic. An excerpt:

Gone are the days when the Republican Party could easily (if simplistically) be divided into social conservatives versus fiscal conservatives. There are libertarian Republicans, Christian conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans, Wall Street Republicans, balanced-budget Republicans, tax-cutting Republicans, cut-the-size-of-government Republicans, neoconservative Republicans supporting global intervention and isolationist Republicans who would like to stay at home.

And the fault lines always seem to be shifting, depending on the issue. There are fiscal Republicans who are clamoring for rewriting Social Security because it reduces the size of government, and fiscal Republicans who abhor the idea because the Bush plan itself would cost so much money. To a large extent, this is the price of success. No longer does the spotlight focus on differences between Republicans and Democrats. What matters today are debates between Republican and Republican.

And here's a companion piece about the power groups within the Democratic Party. An excerpt:

[L]ike many species that have departed the world, centrist Democrats today struggle with an unfriendly environment. After more than four years of Republican dominance in Washington, the ecosystem that allowed them to thrive is shrinking fast. There are fewer deals to be cut ... and in some ways less for the Democrats' self-styled moderates to criticize in their own party....

[T]here's ... less tolerance for Democrats who break ranks, especially on core issues - as Mr. Lieberman, whose liberal record on environmental and labor issues comes with a penchant for conspicuous bipartisanship...

Neither party is very appealing. I'm keeping my distance from both.