James Joyner sees his acquiescence to the crazies as perhaps the best strategy to neutralize them:
It would be a failure of leadership to pander to these people’s worst instincts. At the same time, it would be counterproductive to challenge them directly and forcefully, since it would just be met with defensiveness and cognitive dissonance. (See: Huntsman, Jon.) The middle approach of emphasizing common cultural touchstones while nibbling on the edges of the areas of disagreement has a chance of success.
I take the point. But the zeal of the base makes tinkering with their prejudices and fears extremely dangerous in government. When a party becomes its own echo-chamber, when it denies basic realities such as climate change, or the collapse in government revenue, or legitimate Arab grievances, or the suffering of the uninsured, or the existence of gay soldiers worth cheering not booing … there's usually only one true re-education process: electoral defeat.
The Dish 