The biggest issues that bother me, in that I here ZERO talk from on the right of center side are:
1) Automation/Jobs - This one is a big deal. With improving AI and greater use of technology everywhere, it's a dangerous spot for jobs. People write of this concern sometimes as "Yea, everyone was worried about that in the past but it opened up new industries and never panned out". That's a fair point. But, it's not the same this time. The industries opening up are highly specialized and not able to do the tasks of unskilled workers. Moreover, AI is the ultimate "threat". We are, in all likelihood nowhere close to true "AI", but a true AI would completely rip this open, as it would be capable of doing all jobs better than humans.
In any event, what do you do if automation/tech creates a situation where unemployment goes to 10%, or 20%, or higher? In other words, a situation where 95% of Americans want to work, but only 75% can? I don't see how our current system can handle that. Do we just let them starve off and die? When the dems open up the conversation to more socialist measures or UBI talk in this framework, I again understand where it's coming from.
Right of center has never given an answer. It's either ignored, or a "It won't happen" is given. Ignorning disruptive threats with "it won't happen" is ridiculous. Right of center needs an answer.
2) Climate Issues - No, we can't predict the future. But most of our best attempts and models and data collection and guessing is pointing us in a certain direction. That certain direction is really, really ugly. Anywhere between hugely painful to civilization disrupting depending on the extent. Even if there is only a 1%, hell a 0.1% chance of climate change "panning out", not talking about it and ignoring it is ridiculous.
If you found out there was a 1% chance that your wife or kid was going to get killed, would you ignore it? Would we ignore it if there was a 1% chance a massive asteroid was going to hit earth? I suspect very strongly the answer to both of those is "Hell no". Yet, the right does. Or dismisses it. I have no problems with the right saying "Look, this is highly improbable and we really doubt the science as well.". No issues there. But its significant enough, with enough data, that we should at least be talking about how we want to try and handle the potential risk.