The three legged stool of the Reagan coalition was fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and defense/foreign policy conservatism. Now the stool has two legs. The social conservatives are on the outs.
Looking ahead, the Obama Administration, given its economic policies, may be destined for calamity. Conservatives of the sort who take part in national politics can all rally around that awareness. But meanwhile, social issues embarrass the kind of folk who publish most national papers and magazines on the right, their homes and offices located in the metro regions of Washington, DC and New York, their hearts and minds functionally agnostic. They tend to regard social conservatives as poor relations.
The trouble is, even if the national leaders of the social conservatives agree for now to soft-pedal issues of primary concern to their constituents and join the conservative Common Front, they can't make their "followers" follow. Like liberals, social conservative voters are values-driven. They are not "Republicans" or even "conservatives" as a first commitment. Many are religious. Some are temperamentally closer to liberals than conservatives on economic perceptions. The difference is, they think the country is on the wrong moral track and cannot see how to save the next generation from materialism and relatavism. Reagan resonated with them. Hardly anyone on the national scene does today. They are oblivious to The New York Times, but they care little more for The Wall Street Journal or National Review.
Right now social conservatives supposedly have no where to go politically. Therefore, while they are upset about the new Administration, they are being patronized by Republican party leaders and even more by most so-called conservative media and columnists.
But it is false to imagine that they have no choice.
They can stay home.
If and when that happens, do the math. See how far conservatism gets without them.
