Yes, a lot of the "trad cons" have missed out on the need to effectively spread their ideas in institutions and fight the culture war "on the ground" in the process.Progressivism is not something that can be fought effectively by trad cons, because most trad cons do not want to adapt strategies or tactics effective against progressives.
Trying does not inherently mean their suggestions are good.Most 'classical liberals' these days are part of the Right now, because the progressives forced them out with their insanity, and are trying to help the right fight more effectively.
If their ideas for fighting progressives were a proverbial golden bullet, DNC would be a classical liberal party. Instead they are getting pushed out of that party. Let that sink in.
The right is only managing to keep progressivism from "long marching" through their political institutions, and in some cases, as this thread shows, they too fail at that.
Yes, they do need to adapt, that everyone agrees. OTOH in many ways this adaptation would need to make them *more* ideologically intense than before, and certainly does not include compromising with progressives and their ideology.The longer trad cons try to cling to past paradigms, instead of learning to adapt to current realities, the less relevant they will be on the Right going forward.
Libertarianism, on the face of it, is ideologically neutral. Its technically compatible with any "culture war" position that's not big on pushing its ways on the general population, in my abovementioned classification expressed in point 2 low interventionism... Believe what you will, just sod off from other people who believe otherwise, and expect the same deal from said other people (and if their side of that deal is not delivered, then there's no deal, a part that disturbingly many libertarians forget to apply). Those not particularly expansionist ideologies aren't the most common ones though, what a coincidence indeed, and that's the problem.Don't concede so easily. NAP is very prominent in libertarian thinking as well.
It was directly inspired by the works of Murray Rothbard. He's a foundational economist of libertarian thinking andfrom the Austrian School of Economics.
I understand that libertarians (or more precisely 'classical' liberals) have been trying to gatekeep Austrian economic thought out of libertarianism so they can justify everything from strong borders to national health care to public schools etc but NAP has always been a foundational value of libertarianism even if not in a literal sense, certainly in an ideological one.
And libertarianism by and large is terrible at conserving traditions and founding principles. They're fine for when its a war of words but little beyond that when more then intellectual debate maybe required.
It is not, however, an unsolvable one. Just because you think state shouldn't be used to push a specific socio-cultural narratives on citizens, doesn't mean you shouldn't advocate, favor or campaign for your preferences in that regard by all other means. In fact it's even more of a reason why you should, because nature abhors a vacuum, and if you won't do it and the state won't do it, then some of these other ideologies certainly will promote theirs instead, and you probably won't like the results of that, because sure as hell they don't like you.
Political libertarianism is a manifestation of a certain particular (sub)culture with its own values, preferences, ideas and outlook on the world, and if libertarians won't spread it, who is supposed to do it for them, and if no one will do it, where do they plan to get enough members for that social group to possibly get more voters in the future? The progressives certainly won't promote (and probably not even tolerate) libertarian ideals, narratives and worldview in any media, social or educational institution they control, that's one thing that's absolutely certain.