While in the whole I agree with it, the author grossly mis-states a tenet of Libertarianism. According to her, "My Libertarians friends believe that fiscal conservatism is enough to revive our nation and that social conservatism does not matter."
That could only be very slightly further from the truth. The classical definition of 'liberal' has been so corrupted in modern times that neither the Left nor the Right qualify. Classical Liberalism -- what we call 'Libertarianism' today -- simply demands that the government stay out of your business. That is certainly not the case with regard to moral issues for the Left today. They're all about regulating your morality, as the article itself notes through example. They're also about controlling your finances through Big Government and heavy taxation, fines and regulations. That's not liberal. They only use the word as lip-service to mean 'compliant', as in 'votes for me'.
On the other hand, laissez-fair capitalism doesn't have anything to do with being 'conservative', either. Allowing maximum personal choice, a free-market economy, and economic regulation though the natural processes of supply and demand is about as liberal a policy, in the classical sense, as it's possible to adopt. But since modern progressives have successfully hijacked the term 'Liberal' (with a capital "L"), neither side knows what the word actually means anymore. So new a new label is adopted, and the meaning further skewed. Hence, in the minds of some, the modern 'Conservative' label has become almost as far removed from common sense as that of 'Liberals'.
For instance, since when has intolerance been a conservative principle? It certainly has never been so historically. The Republican President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. The Ku Klux Klan was fostered by Democrats, not Republicans. I know... Democrats hate being reminded of it, but it's factual history.
Tolerance is not a 'conservative' stance, as it is about being liberal in the choices you allow others to make for themselves. It is, however, also not a 'Liberal' stance by today's definition. The Left has long-since eschewed tolerance for that very same 'compliance'. Under modern progressive liberalism, nearly anything can be tolerated of anyone who votes Democratic. Conversely, intolerance is actively encourage against those who don't. Thus, blacks need be tolerant only of blacks and can advocate killing white cops with impunity. Atheists need only tolerate other atheists, freely shaming Christians for their 'crazy' beliefs (while carefully avoiding New Age Democrat voters). Feminists need tolerate only other feminists regardless of gender, so that the hypocrisy of wearing a T-shirt celebrating misandry while shouting down misogyny is completely invisible to their senses. All 'right-wingers' can be safely labeled idiots, white people from the South can be lampooned as being inbred, etc.
'Liberals' aren't liberal: they haven't been for decades. Their claim to the title is patently absurd. Likewise, for 'Conservatives' to claim to uphold traditional values while excluding tolerance as one of those values is likewise absurd.
Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower reminded us of this in his state of the Union address in 1959,
"One of the fundamental concepts of our constitutional system is that it guarantees to every individual, regardless of race, religion, or national origin, the equal protection of the laws. Those of us who are privileged to hold public office have a solemn obligation to make meaningful this inspiring objective."We Libertarians recognize that we don't need laws stating what we can do. We need fewer laws because we are constitutionally recognized as free. Read for yourself the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth Amendment reminds us that we are not limited to the rights that the Government bestows on us. The Tenth reminds us that we are not limited to the powers that the Government allots us.
To the point at hand ('social conservatism' in the context of morality): in matters of morality and religion, the Federal government is constitutionally prohibited by the First Amendment from taking a stand. That is what 'wall of separation' means. What it does not mean is government validation of your intolerance toward seeing other people exercise their religious freedom.
I can't tell you not to pray; but I can't force you to do it, either. It's sauce for the goose and gander; completely fair and impartial. We need fewer laws because a law that tells you what you can do is constitutionally unnecessary in a free society. The extent to which you desire such laws is a measure of your belief that you are not, in fact, free. The very concept that you need a law to prohibit someone from making a moral choice is the complete opposite of Liberty. Our system has been so perverted for so long that few people on either side have even the slightest clue about how it's supposed to work.
Libertarians are Libertarians because they do know. And though apologists for the Big Two Parties have made feeble attempts to 'define' Libertarianism for the Libertarians, we don't need the assistance, thankyouverymuch. As a rule of thumb, a Libertarian will tell you that the use of force is justified only in response to someone else who imposes their will by force. Laws themselves are a form of force. Why else do you think the police are called Law Enforcement, hmm? Pretty self-explanatory. That single justification... defense... is how a Libertarian views the totality of the law. As such it's not anarchist. Murder, robbery, rape... all manner of violent crimes... are the imposition of force, so we believe in laws against them. The military prevents the use of force against our populace. The Second Amendment recognizes our individual right to exercise force in defense of ourselves and our country. But many of our laws have nothing to do with crime, or force, or justice, or defense. Rather, they're nothing more than the deliberate imposition of one group's will on another merely because the second group is making some choice the first group wouldn't. That's despotism, and it's immoral.
The author of the Politichicks.com piece notes:
"The Christian right understands that God will not enlighten, protect, comfort or restore a nation that defies His moral code."Think about what that means, and more importantly what it doesn't mean. Is it possible for a nation to be a moral nation if that morality is forced upon them? Is compliance with law on a par with willful submission to God's will? Do you think God might be able to tell the difference? How would you respond to the Muslims in Syria who persecute Christians for the sake of creating a nation that does not defy God's moral code. Can you simultaneously hold your position as righteous and theirs as not? Perhaps God gave us free will in order to allow us to make those choices as individuals. Perhaps a righteous nation is that which chooses to follow Him of their own volition, out of love; and not because they were driven to follow Him by force, out of fear.
As important as it is for us to make the right choices, it is important for us to make the right choices.
It's time for people to screw their heads on right and realize that 'Land of the Free' does not mean that you're 'free to do what they allow you to do'. I hold myself to traditional morality because I choose to. Prominent in that list of things that are traditionally considered moral, I see the rights of others to make their own choices and not be fettered by those that I or others force upon them. That's a far cry from saying that 'social conservatism doesn't matter'. Rather, it's a position that's codified in our Constitution, in the Federalist papers, and in every other source regarding the founding of this country that you care to examine. It is the very essence of Freedom. It is, in fact, THE conservative principle. It is also THE liberal principle. Neither "side" gets it right. It's time to join a new side.