I wasn't challenging your definition of "conservatives," I was trying to make the point that for some folks, simply being anti-abortion is "conservative," such as Santorum, considered by many a "conservative" though he would use government, in that example I gave, in a way that you and I both agree is the antithesis of "conservative."
The real elephant in the room is that conservatives and libertarian-minded Americans need to unite. I think that many self-described conservatives exclude as "non-conservative" those who do NOT want the Federal government to be in the business of marriage, "wars" against consequences of moral failings such as drug abuse and obesity, and abortion. A libertarian in principle would automatically be for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, but may not be for a Federal law outlawing abortion. There are conservatives who would therefore reject any alliance with libertarians becase by their definition, "conservatives" want Federal law to outlaw abortion.
It's tangled and thorny. Thanks so much for your thoughtful responses. I don't pretend to have the answers. I do know that more of the same -- voting for Republican liberals instead of Democrat liberals -- is the wrong answer.
It makes much more sense to me for the Conservatives to form their own party and let the Libertarians stay with the dim lite GOP.
I guess my position is that, on the moral issues (and believe me, I’m about as “conservative” and right wing as you can get), they were traditionally left to the states for the first several hundred years. The states “could” legislate morality,(to me, that’s really what laws are, you are legislating what that group of people believes are right and wrong) and did, but they gave the option of many little “mini-countries” with their own unique personalities, all united under the banner of THESE United STATES. I am very pro-life, and one place I would hedge that opinion is on abortion (as I believe the Declaration of Independence, as well as all moral law gives the right to life), but at the very least, ROE v. Wade should be thrown out and let it go back to the states to decide, as it was for 200 years.
This way, you can have more “liberal” minded people who would rather regulate business like crazy, can live in certain states if that’s what they want, to save the spotted tree toad or something, but trading their extreme environmental laws for seeing a lot of their business leave. If that’s what they want for their state, then fine. Let them legislate that at the state level. Then you can have conservative states in a more free, pro business environment, not dictated to by these oppressive federal agencies. As long as the free-er states don’t have to bail out the anti-business states when they get into debt.If a state votes and amendment to keep gay marriage illegal, the Federal Government has no business overturning that.
The states work together on the very few areas where the constitution gave the federal government limited authority, like protection of the entire country from outside invaders, and other than that, our country is more of a quilt of different little countries with very different personalities, some more maybe some very free market in business but with traditional moral values kept in state laws, some more libertarian, some more “liberal”, all knit together by the constitution, with each state only limited by the constititution. Rather than one big baggy one-size-fits-all suffocating tarp to strangle every difference between the states. It would allow people different options on where to live that best fits their personalities without imposing that on the entire country, and would also be a little test tube where people could look around and see on a smaller, more manageable level, the results of certain policies.