I've been waiting for this: a smackdown of Neal Boortz for his dismissive attitude toward social conservatism

I didn't personally hear it, but I've been reading about Boortz's rant, when he subbed for Hannity on the radio the other day, against the swath of the rightie movement that emphasizes the Judeo-Christian view of proper sexual relations, as well as people who aren't born yet.  I heard many such diatribes when Boortz had his own show.  They made my teeth grind.

Trevor Thomas offers an effective takedown of the Boortz - and John Stossel (mentioned by name in his piece) - position at The American Thinker today.  He points out that conservatives prior to the late 1960s didn't speak of "social issues" because certain morals, mores and customs were universally recognized in American society:

Contrary to what self-described libertarians such as Boortz and John Stossel would have us believe, if conservatives simply shut up about issues like abortion and marriage and focus on things like debt and fiscal responsibility, there's no guarantee when it comes to election time. It is a long-held myth, typically perpetuated by self-described liberals in the mainstream media but also by self-described libertarians, that whenever the moral issues are prominent in elections, conservatives lose. As I have noted before, Jeffrey Bell in his book The Case for Polarized Politics helps dispel this myth.

"Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," notes Bell. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix -- I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."

Bell concludes, as have many others, that American social conservatism began in response to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Thus, it is unsurprising that all of the most significant "social" issues in America today are sexual issues. Abortion, homosexuality, marriage, contraception, and the like, are not hot political topics merely because they relate to people's personal lives. They are hot political topics because they reside deep within the moral realm of our culture.

I have long thought that there was a glaring irony in the Boortz position.  He loves to rail against the "moocher class" and the entrenched bureaucracy that permeates American institutions from government to education to industry, yet he fails to make the connection between its rise and the deterioration of the family structure and the legitimization of unusual sexual practices the extermination of fetal Americans.

You can't assert that "what the neighbors are doing is none of your business" and then get outraged when all of those neighbors - up and down the block and across the country - are living in ways that drain the nation of its economic vitality and erode the freedoms that are actually important.