If the culture war is lost then the country is lost. People won’t fight and die for a libertine culture. All one has to do is look at Europe and see how the rise of social liberalism has been accompanied by the rise of the all-encompassing nanny state, passivity in the face of terrorism, and a willingness to concede the continent to Islam as long as the lavish welfare & retirement benefits last long enough for the current generation to live comfortably until they die.
If libertarians are correct, and we can be socially liberal but otherwise conservative, then why do socially liberal places such as San Francisco, Vermont, and Massachusetts become so socialistic and anti-military? Why is a shift to the left on (for example) abortion or homosexuality never accompanied by a rightward drift on economic issues or national defense?
It’s no coincidence that the Great Society, the anti-American radicalization of the ‘Rat party, and the libertine sexual revolution all arose at around the same time in the sixties. They’re all intertwined.
They are indeed.
The far left social radicals attacked our country in the 1960s and the Libertarians have now surrendered to them.
If their surrender was not bad enough, after surrendering, the Libertarians now fight hand in hand with the Liberals against the Conservatives.
If Massachusetts is so anti-military, then on my commute home every day, why do I see all those signs on highway overpasses welcoming back family members from Iraq? Why do I see highway overpasses decorated with the flags of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps?
social liberalism has been accompanied by the rise of the all-encompassing nanny
As does social conservatism. It's all down to Two Concepts of Liberty
(Iasiah) Berlin distinguished between two forms or concepts of liberty - negative liberty and positive liberty - and argued that the latter concept has often been used to cover up abuse - leading to the curtailment of people's negative liberties "for their own good".Social conservatives, like socal liberals, promote posive rights to help society - they both have good intentions that they know how to run peoples live.Negative and positive rights
Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another human being, or group of people, such as a state, usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be provided with something through the action of another person or the state.To state the difference more formally, if 'A' has a negative right against 'B' then 'B' must refrain from acting in a way that would prevent 'A' from doing 'x'. If 'A' has a positive right against 'B', then 'B' must assist 'A' to do 'x' if 'A' is not able to do 'x' without that assistance. For example, a negative right to life would require others to refrain from killing a person. A positive right to life would require others act to save the life of someone who would otherwise die.
Negative rights may be used to justify political rights such as freedom of speech, property, habeas corpus, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, a fair trial, freedom from slavery and the right to bear arms.
Positive rights may be used to justify public education, health care, social security or a minimum standard of living.