Sorry to be jumping in so late. I've just read through your excellent series of "What is to be done" posts. And I'd like to propose an answer to the question "What can libertarians offer social conservatives?"
I'm a semi-libertarian with a pesky socon reflex. When I was younger (much) I was a LP dues-payer, but the dopers and baby-killers chased me out years ago.
What's available to compromise is this: A radically reduced Federal government, in size, scope, and power, will be much less able to hurt you and your family. A Federal government bound to its enumerated powers, and especially with the Department of Education abolished, will not be able to interfere in your personal life or subvert your faith and your ability to teach it to your children.
We came together in 1994 to elect a Congress bound to exactly those things. The people we sent to Washington betrayed us, lost their offices, and (as is the nature of two-party politics) have turned the affairs of the nation over to the enemy.
But we can still prosper IF we confine our purposes to putting the Federal beast back into its Constitutional cage.
Political Christians? I love 'em. America would be a better place if they were in charge.
But the ones I know are blind to the facts that 70% of the voters hate and fear them, and their active support is the kiss of death for any statewide or national candidate.
They need to meditate on Jesus' promise, "the world will hate you because of me", and hearken to his teaching that "My kingdom is not of this world".
Let's get back to "That government is best that governs least".
Jim, your contribution is always welcome.
As I was reading your response it occurred that you are right these are issues over which conservatives of all flavors can agree. But are they the issues that will reverse a couple of generations of cultural marxism? For example, Reagan himself could not get rid of the Department of Education and today it has waxed more toxic.
The title of this thread is, "who is the next Newt?" And I recall Newt bringing up a series of issues which he claims he has polled and which he claims have overwhelming support across the partisan spectrum such as support for English, support of the flag, etc.. My point is that it might be possible to find an issue which has inflammatory symbolic value and exploit it to get to the root problem, such as the federalization of education. Could support for English, for example, the used in this way?
