I would argue moreso...
Actually, I write off anyone who uses the term “theocrat” to describe social conservatives as being a cultural Marxist. The reason leftists such as Hillary, Schumer, Obama, etc. are so viciously opposed to social conservatism is that it’s about the only thing left standing in the way of the expanding leviathan nanny state.
But what about libertarians? Aren’t they standing in the way of the socialist nanny state? Yes, but since there aren’t that many of them they’ll just be rolled over once the social conservatives are marginalized.
The tactic is very simple, and should be obvious to everyone. Convince the libertarians that social conservatism is an insidious threat to personal liberty. Why, it’s an effort to set up a theocracy! It’s no different than the Taliban! So the libertarians fall for it, largely because they think with their libido instead of their brains. The libertarians join the hardcore leftists in denouncing laws against abortion, homosexuality, and so forth.
The leftists then point to their libertarian allies and say, “See? Even many conservatives are horrified at what the religious right is advocating!” They assert that what we need are more “Barry Goldwater conservatives” who embrace abortion, gay rights, secularism, and “tolerance”. Over time, social conservatives are politically marginalized. The left then high fives itself, spits in the face of their libertarian allies, and rolls over them to enact expanded nanny state and socialist legislation. They can easily do that because with social conservatives crushed, there are enough libertarians to accomplish a damn thing. In addition, a society awash in social liberalism, secularism, “tolerance”, etc. will by definition be a society of weaklings screaming for nanny statism.
Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that the Great Society and the sexual revolution occurred contemporaneously? Of course not. They feul one another.
SubGeniusX wrote: “I would argue moreso...”
You could argue big government “conservatives” are more dangerous than Marxists, but it would be ridiculous to do so. The Marxists literally killed tens of millions of people in the 20th Century. Bush and other big government “conservatives” may not govern as you’d like, but it’s absurd to say they are more dangerous than Marxists.