Agree to disagree?

The main synthesis within these various articles, especially those of Mead and McLoughlin seem to be the ways in which Calvinism influenced pre-Revolutionary America politically, ideologically, and religiously. Calvinism is presented to us as a fiery, yet disciplined frontier methodology. Mead cites Heimert, stating, "the warmer nationalism of the evangelical [Calvinist] tradition infused the ideology of Jacksonian Democracy," while McLoughlin is content to present further evidence of Heimert's idea of Liberal reluctance to patriotism: "Liberalism was profoundly conservative, politically as well as socially, and that its leaders, insofar as they did in fact embrace the Revolution, were the most reluctant of rebels." 

The greatest tension here is that religious difference that polarizes the two camps of Calvinist and Liberal, or the nonconformists and the rationalists. I would be very interested to read some of the essays that McLoughlin argues Heimert has thrown out with his thesis. My biggest question would be: why can these ideas not exist alongside the others?