I can sum up the problems social liberals are facing right now fairly briefly, which I'm sure thread readers will enjoy compared to the rest of the thread:
[...]
Arguments were then advanced which relied on these facets (along with some counter-ideological moral browbeating) and pretty much every authoritarian impulse has been bred out of right-of-center people.
I do not see this even in the center-right. An authoritarian impulse is a heightened fear of the outgroup. American conservatives tend to be fearful of immigrants and Muslims. Social conservatives want certain activities to be prohibited such as the procurement of abortion. Conservatives tends to support the US military and see those who oppose military action as being unpatriotic.
Social Justice / Social Left replaced that fixed God with an amorphous Moloch that is never satisfied until you can recite the 78 Tumblr Genders and psychically know which ones apply to all people at all times - and then it will invent a new, even crazier sin to repent from to install in your daily social interaction.
The simplest solution is to ignore the social left and not take them seriously.
However, I believe social conservatives CANNOT ignore them since for whatever reason a large portion of social conservatives derive their political identity by opposing social justice warriors. It would seem that conservatives have nothing better to do than to galvanize other conservatives by presenting the social justice warriors as serious threats.
The entire movement completely lacks empathy for its declared enemies, such that when blatant Christian bigotry is stated and then pointed out, the response is "Oh, the poor Christians! [Subtext: What about real victims without privilege of advantageous power dynamics?]" The guy who lost his factory job in Michigan twenty years ago and has been drifting from non-career to non-career ever since doesn't care that the people he sees shooting up and burning down Detroit every day have higher social value in academia than he does. To him, Academia is nothing but Communist professors and spoiled brats (and current events note: their behavior since November 9th is actively confirming this bias)!
That's his problem, and if he thinks that way, he could not identify any of his legitimate grievances. Most people in academia are not communists. In my alma mater's philosophy department, there is only one professor who could be considered a Marxist (because he referenced Toni Negri) once, but he never explicitly told me his political views, but espouses left-wing views and has an antipathy for Donald Trump. That kid doesn't even know what "communism" is if he thinks academia are communists. Actually, since he thinks that academia is full of "communist" professors, it shows that he has been brainwashed by the right rather than the left.
Ironically, one actual solution for the child's problem is Marxism. Why? Marxism focuses on the material aspects behind production and the relationship of individuals to the productive assets. Marxism does not focus on identity politics with the notable exception of trying to understand class relationships.
It is that kid's father fault, although it is not directly his fault, since he was influenced by the propaganda system of his country. The father likely does not have any class consciousness or even an understanding of what is salutary to his material interests. For instance, socially conservative blue collar workers supported the Vietnam War and regarded opposition to it to be unpatriotic (see the "hard hat riots"). Now, he should wonder how he could have potentially benefited from the war and other geopolitical stances that the State Department assumed. For instance, the fall of the Soviet Union opened up global markets markets and encouraged free trade, so he would be exposed to more economic competition through globalization. Moreover, there is no longer an incentive for the political elite to increase living standards since they no longer have to compete with the Eastern Bloc in order to win the hearts and minds of their population. He should realize those wars were largely to secure resources for a small minority of the population.
Part of cultivating that attitude in comity with imperialism requires implicit racism towards domestic minorities. It does not often manifest itself as overt hostility towards socially and economically disadvantaged and historically aggrieved minorities, but it does manifest itself as contemptuous attitudes and stereotypes. He may think of black women as undeserving "welfare queens" and black men as lazy but sexually virile and violent. He still regards them as "the other" who exert an inimical influence on society and culture and are not worthy of to be regarded as his social and economic equal.
If this assessment is incorrect, then why is there so much expressed animus and disdain towards Colin Kaepernick who eloquently articulated his stance towards police brutality and the impunity of law enforcement and do so without any violence? Kaepernick did not harm anyone, but he has earned the enmity of most people.
