And likewise, many so-called Conservatives actually just use the social edge of the blade and keep a dull, liberal (immoral) fiscal ideology on the other edge.
IMHO there is a third side:
Size and power of government.
There’s overlap between all three.
All three are important. Some of us see liberty as the most important. Some see faith as most important.
Some see financial responsibility as the key.
No need for lockstep.
How about illegal drugs? Banning drugs has utterly, miserably failed. The war on drugs has only increased their cost and made crime vastly worse. So do we legalize them? If legal, the cost would plummet, the black market would vanish, and the thefts drug users commit would diminish, but the lowered cost would certainly increase drug use. Legalization is also risky since we don't know the effects for certain. Frankly, while I'm socially conservative and morally opposed to drugs, there isn't a clear solution.
The "social blade" has the problem that even if you get two people to agree on a desired outcome (no drug usage), their approaches to the solution may be radically different. And then there is the fact that generally the approach entails some loss of liberty.
I'll agree that social problems are enormously important, more important than economic problems. I think we can even get a lot of agreement on goals, such as reducing abortions, lowering drug use, keeping families together, and so on. However, when we talk government polices, we have problems. Whenever possible, society needs to solve society's problems. Right now we have a moral breakdown, and I don't see politicians fixing that.
The problem is that the most important part of a sword is the point, which in this case represents the size and scope of government. Far too many so-called social conservatives have no problem with a nanny state, provided that the nanny shares their views. A sword without a point is worthless.