The only debate worth having is this one:
What kind of jurisprudence system is the country to have? Is it one based on positive rights or one on negative rights?
Until people strike at the root and discuss jurisprudence with respect to property, which is the right of ownership and not what is owned, though the naive thing it means "your land" or "your house," there is no point to discuss politics. Thus, right now, political discourse in the USA is a waste of time.
Positive Rights vs Negative Rights
To almost everyone, positive rights sounds better because of the word "positive." They are naive and do not know the meaning of words from the field of jurisprudence.
A system of positive rights gives to people advantages based upon qualification and thus imposes duties upon others to give them those advantages.
A system of negative rights gives people the right to be left alone in their present states and imposes duties upon others not to injure them in anyway by diminishing their present states.
So positive rights means welfare based on sex or age or not achieving an income because one lacks skills demanded in the market place, even if that one was too lazy to acquire those skills, or subsidy to do an act no one wants or subsidy to stop an act of competition.
Any arbitrary designation lawmakers can scheme up can become the basis of a group owed duty and thus given positive rights.
To pay for those positive rights, those who are diligent are enforced to pay say income taxes, that is, duty is imposed upon them, which get turned over to those who have the rights to be advantage.
Under negative rights, none of that could happen. There could be no welfare and no schemes to force the productive to beholden to the unproductive.
The USA was a negative rights country until 1933 and the enactment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
Now when presented this way, even people who call themselves Republicans, suddenly become paternalistic liberals in the mold of Britain's PM Disraeli from long ago.
In short, they would side with the current Democrats with shouts of "muh Medicare!" and "muh Social Security!" and "muh farm subsidy!" and "muh guaranteed student loan!"
And so, what you see is truth if you can see it:
Nearly everyone in the USA who can vote and is so-called engaged in politics is indoctrinated by his or her side. None have put their minds to the task of understanding themselves and what are political ethics.
Authentic Conservativism
To be an authentic conservative actually means one who desires to restore the republic, a USA solely of negative rights, the USA before 1933. Of course that does not mean ridding ourselves of technical advances that have entered life since 1933.
Yet, it means ending LBJ's Great Society of Medicaid and Medicare. It means ending FDR's Social Security. It means ending the departments of Energy and Agriculture. It means no more farm subsidies.
A USA republic based on an actual reading of the Constitution of the United States means general welfare, i.e., well-being for all. So that means ports, roads, bridges and defense, meet the criteria of the Constitution because such things benefit every individual, every day. No one is disadvantaged so only some benefit.
There are No Mainstream Conservatives in the USA
Clearly, the Democrats are not conservatives. They are striving to at least force the USA to become a full-blown social democracy if not a full-blown socialist country.
The Republicans merely are trying to maintain the status quo of social democracy lite, i.e., red toryism in the USA. So Republicans are not conservatives as well.
Nearly every Republican voter is a social democrat and that, by definition, excludes them from being republicans, i.e., followers of USA republicanism, which is rooted in negative rights jurisprudence.
Gab It
