The high visibility paleos have come to put the cart before the horse, demanding fragmentation of the country or some kind of devolution of power as a prelude to greater freedom and morality. In fact it's a diversion, a red herring. It's a bit like other conservatives who tell us that we don't have to worry about immigration if we can just abolish the welfare state. Dismantling the welfare state looks like a much harder job than reforming immigration policy. Similarly, taking the country apart looks like a harder job than reducing federal budget or bureaucracy or promoting moral conduct. But there is a certain logic: split up the country and will all have our hands full dealing with the consequences and little time for other things.
This isn't true though:
"Social conservative" is a contradiction in terms, and people who proudly wear that label are hypocrites.
"Social conservatism" is conservatism. It's the old fundamental or traditionalist preservation of social institutions and rules. It's the ur-conservatism, love it or hate it. It's libertarian or free market conservatism that is the hybrid form. That doesn't make free market conservatism illegitmate, and indeed, it seems more popular than older "throne and altar" or Catholic peasant or Calvinist-Puritan conservatisms, but it's a wise child who can recognize its father, and a wise student of politics who gives credit where it's due.
LOL!