The social conservative recognizes that sound moral and social policy are necessary for a society to be healthy and thrive. The liberal and the libertarian seek to ignore the consequences of loose and tolerant social policy, primarily for personal gratification.

A response I sent to Chicks on the Right regarding this post.

So you are endorsing the increasingly-popular notion that the Republican Party must tell social conservatives in order to get lost to win? News flash: Science and technology have caught up with the pro-life movement, turning millions of Americans against abortion to some degree. I fully believe that science and technology will also validate the opposition to sexual activism. Already there is sufficient evidence to proclaim that the Sexual Revolution was a disaster for this country. The conventional wisdom wants us to discard the social movements precisely because without them, the radical transformation of our society proceeds without opposition and with free disregard of science or empirical evidence.

But by all means, tell the 30 million social and religious conservatives to shut up and get with the program. They won't shut up — true conviction never does — but they will grow tired of the partisan process. Mitt Romney lost because the GOP played the milquetoast game, not because it was "too conservative." With Republicans like these, who needs them? At least the Democrats are known quantities.

What our movement really needs right now is a unifying leader in the mold and spirit of Ronald Reagan. One who stands unwaveringly on a foundation of principle, yet communicates those principles boldly and clearly. There was none in the presidential race of 2012. And that's probably because our higher powers realized that we needed to learn these lessons the hard way.