Well I certainly wouldn't advocate incorporating social conservatism (or traditionalism, which I think is a better term to describe it) into such a movement per se, but it would definitely be better, IMO, to skip all the potential means those in power have of dividing such a movement by adopting a "live and let live" attitude on the issues which could potential rend that coalition apart. Focus on the class struggle first and foremost, settle the other disputes within the movement after the class struggle has been won.
TNF, if you really want to target the kind of republican voters (I guess there are many republican voters like that), you will be forced to abandon social liberalism. A la Jenning Bryan!
Since when was "social liberalism" (Atlas use of the term) incompatible with TNF's style of radical Leftism?
A lot of liberals have this idea that working-class people are universally "socially conservative" (whatever that means-yesterday's progressivism is today's conservatism) but there's little evidence that most working-class people actually do prioritize "social issues" over practical concerns such as job opportunities, low wages, unemployment, and the greed of Wall Street and corporate America.
I'm basing my views on opinion polls on specific, substantial issues-not whether some people in some of America's poorest counties vote Republican. Just because people vote for a certain party, doesn't mean that they agree with (or even know about or care, frankly) all or even most of that party's platform.
