Quote Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Social conservatives tend to be religious - but not one religion. The want the government to primarily stay out of their lives (school indoctrination, pressure on churches, political correctness on holidays, etc)
I tend to think the opposite is true. Social conservatives tend to be religious, and want the government to legislate their views on the rest of the populace. Using abortion as an example, social conservatives want it banned for everyone. If they don't like intrusive government, why can't they just not get abortions and leave everyone else to make their own moral decisions? Are they worried about their faith and commitment, and want things made illegal so they aren't tempted? Or do they just want to stick their noses into everyone else's business? My guess is that it is the last.
Quote Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Libertarianism is a sensible coalition - look at Ron Paul for example. He is adamantly pro-life.
The difference here is that Ron Paul will not try to ban abortions nationwide. He is pro-life, but believes the decisions are better made at the local levels. Don't confuse his personal beliefs with how he thinks the government should be run. Libertarianism is at direct odds with social conservatism. It's basically "you go to (or avoid) hell your way, I'll go (or avoid) mine".

Basically, both of the two parties want your money (and thus more power as BG states). Social conservatives hijacked the GOP to legislate morality, while the tax-and-spend Dems try to redistribute wealth (I guess, I'm not really sure about what they are trying to do with it ).