It's entirely possible the actual Republican leadership is just like Putin's junta: a gang of oligarchs who saw the real money is in government, so they captured the government. Putin used Chechnya, the GOP used 9/11. If you think of the Republicans not as the Nazis or Stalin or other Totalitarian models, but as Putin or as an African dictator -- a straightforward kleptocracy -- they make perfect sense.
Most criticism of the right recognizes that the fiscalcons used the theocons and the white nationalists to gain power to enact their ideological agenda (which, usefully, economically crippled the theocons and the white nationalists, thus making them even angrier and easier to control). And the fiscalcons certainly do have an agenda.
We've always assumed the fiscalcons were just serving the 1% in order to get the bribery money they need to campaign and rule effectively. But what if it's the other way around? What if the 1% is just using the fiscalcons? Where did the wave of libertarian intellectuals (and non-intellectuals on radio) actually come from, anyway? The Kochs and others have been pounding these ideas into gullible heads for a quarter century.
This would explain, for one thing, why spending and debt continue to skyrocket even when the government is 100% under the ostensible control of the fiscalcons. And why when the Great Crisis of 2006 broke, the GOP worked to undermine all attempts to break the power of the elitists financial entities who caused the problem and who, theoretically, EVERY member of the conservative coalition regarded as a mortal enemy.
Maybe we've been wrong, and it hasn't been Norquist using Koch's money to brainwash the Tea Partiers. Maybe it's always been the Kochs riding Norquist's ideology to get Useful Idiot ideologically conservative Republicans to enact their agenda. Maybe the fiscalcons have been just as much the unwitting captives as the theocons and the white nationalists. Their interests have certainly suffered just as much.