New England liberals vs Pacific liberals

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Vermont has a much more rural and agrarian and (formerly and in certain quarters even now) traditionalist character to its liberalism than comparable areas on the Pacific coast. There are still some puritanical cultural attributes, which is also the case in much of Massachusetts outside the Boston area. This doesn't necessary have anything to do with positions on 'social issues' but it's clear in the way politics is often done and the kind of rhetoric and priorities that are usually made and employed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

We can still take pride in the fact that we're not the coast that came up with the Californian ideology.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Substantial CatholicPuritan heritage vs. virtually none.

Fixed. 

You do know why they call it San Francisco, right?

The most socially liberal parts of New England are those with Puritan heritage...

(okay, outside of areas with Jewish heritage/areas with large yuppie or alt populations)

Their "social liberalism" isn't really what it appears on the surface, since it's adopted as a form of passive-aggressive ethnic conflict, and in any case it's more "social liberalism" in the Tipper Gore sense than the Howard Stern sense.

I don't think it's adopted as a form of passive-aggressive ethnic conflict so much as that's just a nice bonus for a lot of people.