So, just to confirm . . . you're unwilling to take the time to discuss your own comments about those with an opposing viewpoint?
I spent a lot of time on my initial post in this thread only to have a not serious dialogue about what I brought up. So I'm hesitant to go down this rabbit hole, but I will do so just to show you why you're not getting many conservatives to bite in this thread. So, I'm going to dovetail just my first post, and basically why I didn't even respond to your response, which indicated to me you did not want to have any serious discussion about what I brought up.
In response to my pointing out that eugenics was a progressive movement (which it unquestionably was), you wrote:
"Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea? My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races."
If you can't acknowledge eugenics was a progressive movement, we should just stop there, because it's a blatant dodge of uncontroverted fact. This wasn't even worth responding to for me because it indicates you don't want to have a serious dialogue about this particular progressive failure, and how it might portend to other progressive failures.
***
In response to my pointing out that prohibition was a dovetail of both the religious orthodoxy AND the progressive movement (which it unquestionably was, watch "Prohibition" by Ken Burns),
"You believe that limiting access to drink is a predominantly socially liberal policy? Can you point to any similar socially liberal policies today in a similar vein?"
Again, by failing to acknowledge that progressives also want to ban individual consumer behavior (see drink policies, sugar policies, etc. in major cities), what serious dialogue is there to have here?
I know, I know -- "There's a difference between complete prohibition and regulation!!!" Look, both conservatives and progressives want to regulate individual behavior in the way they see fit. There are things conservatives want to regulate and/or completely prohibit, there are things liberals want to regulate and/or completely prohibit, and on and on. If you can't acknowledge that, there's no serious discussion to be had here.
***
In response to my pointing out the federal funding of student loans is by far the biggest issue behind the student loan crisis (and it unquestionably is), you wrote:
Here you appear to be conflating social liberalism with fiscal liberalism. They are different.
If you will not acknowledge that some fiscal decisions are inescapably intertwined with social issues, then there's not really a discussion to be had here. Specifically here, and as Malkynn correctly noted, "I'm saying that you can't 100% separate the ideologies and the finances the way that's trying to be done in this thread. Student loans are a 100% fiscal policy? There was no social ideology behind it? I don't think so."
***
In response to my pointing out that the nationalization of certain constitutional doctrines has led to a warped country -- one that was never meant to be (i.e., Texas and Maine were never going to have the same marriage policies, or whatever), you wrote:
Again, social liberalism has little to do with empowering the federal government. I believe you're confusing social with fiscal liberalism.
This is such a blatant dodge of the progressive movement's FEDERALIZING the Supreme Court and its powers under FDR.
You need to read Wickard v. Fillburn and other decisions of this era to understand how the power of the court and Congress completely changed. The Commerce Clause went from being a minimal doctrine allowing Congress to regulate roads, trains, transport, etc., to allowing Congress to effectively regulate anything and everything that even tangentially relates to the economy.
Do you know why Congress can regulate drugs? It goes back to Wickard. Abortion? Wickard. Marriage? Wickard (as later used to support expanding the taxing power). Guns? Wickard. Environmental issues? Wickard. Healtchare? Wickard (generally, but this is more complicated).
These are all SOCIAL issues, and they are inescapably intertwined with the expansion of the federal government. And the bloating of the federal government was a progressive feature. It was intentional. It was purposeful. It was to NATIONALIZE social issues, which is probably "social conservatives" biggest gripe.
Joe Blow in Kansas is not going to have the same opinion about abortion as Joe Blow in Connecticut. Betty Bob in Texas probably thinks differently about guns than Betty Bob in Maine. But now, because of the progressive's nationalizing of everything, they are compelled to largely follow the same policies.
THAT is the social conservative's objection -- that all of this was nationalized by progressives. And if you want to label this a "oh that's fiscal conservatism," you're not willing to have as serious dialogue.
***
In response to my pointing out that you are taking a logically impossible position in the way you are defining "social conservatives," you wrote:
I'm specifically talking about social conservatism. I've mentioned several times . . . fiscal conservatism seems to be grounded in reason, and while I don't always agree with the conclusions reached from it's logic, there is certainly value to it.
Several posters -- Malkynn, me, BicycleB, and many others, wrote at length about how this is a logically impossible position. You simply cannot separate fiscal and social policies because they are completely intertwined.
Mortgage crisis -- a financial decision, yes, but the result of a social push to help everyone get a house.
Student loans -- a financial decision, yes, but the result of a social push to get more people into schools
Even immigration -- some view it as a financial decision (we can't pay for veterans healthcare for God's sake), so why are we going to take on even more of a burden? But immigration is obviously a social issue as well.
Even abortion -- probably the biggest social issue there is, yet a huge conservative objection is state funding of abortion.
***
That is just a response to my first post in this thread. It is not worth my time to go through your constant mental gymnastics to make my point.
This thread is the biggest straw man on this forum right now -- YOU and only YOU get to decide what a social conservative is, and now that you've created this straw man, anything that doesn't look exactly like YOUR straw man is NOT a social conservative, so AH HAH, you win.
It's a complete waste of time. I'll quote BicycleB again, because his post was well said, and I hope you read it:
You can argue all you want if your goal in this thread is a special space to vent your personal diatribe against every detail of every policy supported by the people you label social conservatives, while excluding every good act or thought by conservatives on the ground that you don't want to include them as "social conservatives." That's not an argument I'm interested in having. I just feel that endless vituperative attacks on people who disagree is part of the problem our society has right now, and seeing the points where there is humanity on the other side is a useful path towards a healthier society. I have done my part to increase understanding. You can ignore it if you like.