On your initial comments...for sure, we're social beings and GDP growth rates alone don't define us. Before answering your specific points, let me just say that I see the vast majority of people with gradations of "tendencies" toward 'conservatism' and 'liberalism', yet still sharing very common needs...and therefore, I attempt to avoid lumping them into easily titled packages...not always successful, but, I am trying.
Now, to the first comments...I, personally, don't see the tying of SNs to other social issues...to me, the SNs are an issue unto themselves. As for the policies you listed (I know there are more), I'd like to use other threads to go into each, so as not to distract or lose focus...each one of them I find very important and relevant...really hope we can keep it going.
Your point about "good intentions" and "effective results" resonates with me. As you may have read from one of my earlier posts, I have an MBA and value the concept of 'Marginal Returns' and the efficient use of limited resources. Indeed, many social programs have been initiated haphazardly, and with little thought to when "victory" will be achieved. My big issue, however, is the seeming lack of concern by some for what motivates a particular social program, therefore resulting in an unwillingness to pull together on a remedy, or sadly, an aggressive opposition to any remedy.
With careful vetting of a particular social issue by all parties, I see the more conservative elements having a highly beneficial role to play by using their innate organization and management skills to achieve the stated goal with maximum efficiency. Hopefully, we'll see evidence of shared goals and efficient implementations for many, if not all of our social issues.
I should make a comment on at least one of the social issues you bring up...it's not 'all encompassing', but definitely appropriate...As regards, "Defunding Police"...I've discussed this topic with a State Police Officer from Oregon where in the city of Eugene, several years ago, the officials decided to employ non-police assets, such as Social Workers and other Mental Health professionals (with police backup plans) in cases where there were no immediate concerns for public safety...this re-distribution of city resources, freed up the policemen/women to focus on criminal cases and not instances of non-violent social 'disturbance'. The folks in Eugene have stayed with the program and the their officers - as well as that State Policeman are fine with it.
To me, that is what's meant by "De-funding"...not eliminating a single officer, but rather freeing them up to do what they're trained to do...and, hopefully, avoid any unnecessary tragedies.
Your thoughts...
P.S. Would enjoy some ND campus reflections sometime, as well.