Rick Santorum is painted as a laughing stock, but he (could) represent something liberals fear: a common sense approach to anarchy and the outrageous. Most people would take a normal life mixed with adventure spirit and a positive outlook, without denying an inherent hardship in facing a world that seems to be callous at every corner where otherwise virtue would operate. When liberals sniff a social trend, they hop on board because they know/think when the trend fades, everyone will “forget” the lies and stupidity of life choices they accumulated. But in actuality they’re left appeasing (non-racial) minorities that are really irrelevant.
“Transgenderism” is anarchy of the soul, where a confusion over gender roles is taken to a wild extreme, and self-mutilation (transgender surgery) is seen as normal because, you know, why are you judging me? It’s my body. People cut themselves open to cure disease, why not cure this disease inside me that makes me feel like I don’t know who I am? But you didn’t cure anything. You only mutilated your sex organs.
Liberals tell you this is okay, instead of laughing at you when you were merely a butch cross-dresser. Then you would have laughed at yourself and become an egomaniac actor/actress. Now you’re just a man without a penis, or a woman without breasts. They used you to get to the homosexuals, you dummy (or as corollary, the homosexuals used you to get back at the mainstream).
If someone feels like a Golden Retriever, and then wants to actualize that feeling with species reassignment surgery (instead of say, writing a book about canids), we will only take him seriously in proportion to the amount of idiots who feel the same way. Feminism will take its adherents to an endpoint where they will abstract emotion into a linear absolute. In other words, emotion (a dynamic property) is separated from the adjacent components that make life what it is. Spirit is not soul, mind is not psyche, personality is not character, and emotion is not just “feelings.” Yet with feminism and its sister ideologies, these are all thrown into the same flavorless pot and treated as synonyms.
In dystopian theory, these idiots would rather be thrown into marked territories. Anarchy Zones. “Anything goes” spaces where extremists can do as they please without interference from the Nanny State. Mate, feed, kill, repeat. In reality, this is already some of the Third World, and the Ghettos of the First World, if you want to look at life through a monetary lens. The poor have a problem when you take this lens and make it a social class comparison, while the rich are on edge in fear of losing what apparently constitutes their identity. “Middle class” was created to make moderately poor people feel better about not being rich.
You can transcend all this by, firstly, treating money as the like-for-like bartering asset it really is. “Credit” is a promise to pay back a loan, a promise that becomes only a hope, and eventually an attempted theft if the loaner is adjudged a “shark.”
Conservatism breaks down when it wants to take liberals on in the arena where they dictate the rules. Liberals are generally know-it-alls who turn out to be know-nothings when you dig below the surface of the garbage they spew, all the while wishing they could be the ultimate liberal who conforms to reality while the herd stagnates.