Social conservatism posits something far more general and fundamental: that conservative institutions of long and established worth such as the family and religion are to be preserved and conserved by government, if not directly then indirectly by ensuring conditions are maintained that favor the health of these institutions.
The liberal-left strain of social liberalism posits that conservative institutions of long and established worth are mere anti-progressive trifles to experiment with, or to toss into the dumpster of social irrelevance.
The libertarian strain of social liberalism posits that conservative institutions of long and established worth are best neglected or stripped of protection and allowed to contend against the tsunami of atheist and morally-relativisitic anomie that has come to dominate popular culture in the past 60 years.
Either strain of social liberalism is deadly. We do not need to speed the destruction of this nation offering to put a "me too" socially liberal Republican in the White House.
I'm very disappointed to see how many liberals are now posting on FR.
I'm a libertarian Republican myself, who has worked co-operatively with social conservatives for 42 years of working in GOP politics.
I'm for a ban on partial birth abortion, or any late term abortions.
But besides that, what is the legislative agenda that social conservatives want to present the soccer moms/Yuppies who are voting Democrat now in the Upper Midwest, who did and would still vote Republican if it weren't for the religious right? They're not pro-Democrats, they're for limited government and low taxes. They're anti-religious right.
Does the GOP just abandon those states and try to squeak out victories holding the South and West? And now, we're in danger of losing Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia to the Democrats too.
What's the 20 year plan for social conservatives in the presidential arena in such an evenly divided electorate?