The Abandonment of Social Conservatism for Fiscal Conservatism

http://www.theignorantfishermen.com/2010/06/abandonment-of-social-conservatism-for.html ^ | 6/30/10

[The Ignorant Fisherman]

We citizens of America are in a fight for our life as a nation. Over the last 75 years we have witnessed a subtle and dramatic takeover of our Republic, which was founded on bedrock principles rooted in the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Social conservatism is also based on natural laws and moral absolutes instilled at the dawn of creation. Alarmingly, we are seeing conservatism being thrown violently overboard and subtly replaced with a progression of immoral laws rooted in secular humanism. This godless ideology is based on an adherence to unnatural laws of error that produce only decadence and anarchy. Our nation has fallen dramatically and exponentially in the past 50 years. It doesn't take an MSNBC anchor to comprehend this. These “fifth column secularists” are fully aware of this progression and are moving as fast as they can to transform our nation into their delusional, secular-socialist-utopian state.

What is even more troubling is the trend that exists in the Conservative movement of today. Many who identify themselves as “genuine Conservatives” are in fact nothing more than mere “fiscal Conservatives.” What is most disturbing is that on the current and important issues, it is readily apparent that most of these hold liberal views and base their values on a “morally relative” position. When “push comes to shove,” they are quite willing to abandon in a heartbeat core moral absolutes in favor of sound fiscal policies.

[ClearCase_guy]

My Social conservatism drives my Fiscal conservatism.

BUMP!

[greene66]

Fiscal and social conservatism are two equal sides of the same coin to me.

I’ve learned NOT to trust anyone who clings solely to one side or the other. You wind up with either a degenerate sleazeball or a big-government nanny-stater... neither of which is a ‘real’ conservative in my book.

[cripplecreek]

Our local fishwrap doesn’t like my candidate because as a congressman he didn’t bring enough pork to the district and they questioned how a conservative could be opposed to helping the folks. It’s the typical liberal game of setting the shifting parameters where a conservative can never fall within them.

In reality my candidate simply feels that we should take no more from government than we give and giving less to government leaves us with more to do with as we wish.

[13Sisters76]

I think that most people- and this includes me- aren’t abandoning social conservatism. I remain a hard wired con, both fiscal AND social. It is simply that I believe that social matters are largely the purview of the states and the fed has absolutely NO place in them. In my perfect world (and I remain ever hopeful) we will succeed and push the fed back into the box where it belongs. Social matters are for the local community- people have the absolute right to vote for the community they want. It is here that the liberT’s and I part. Supporting a secular conservatism for the fed doesn’t make us faithless- just Constitutionally practical.

[Talisker]

Politically speaking, it all boils down to the relationship between the people and the state - that whole negative rights thing.

1. People above the state = rights = good.

2. State above the people = privileges = bad.

“The Left” keeps it’s eye on this ball, no matter what. It creates an endless sh*tstorm of outrages and crises all designed to either incrementally move from 1 to 2, or hide the moving from 1 to 2, or punish and destroy those in the way of moving from 1 to 2.

“Conservatism” is just a label - ask any RINO. They’ll go to church, say all the right things, and then merely stay quiet when they should speak out. Just so they help getting from 1 to 2, the Left doesn’t care - they’re in, you’re out.

[Durus]

It was the abandonment of the constitution by liberals, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives that has damaged our country the most. This only occurred after more then 100 years of deliberate indoctrination and propaganda by socialists. Your belief in God or a god or belief in no god or belief in whatever kooky spiritualism is “in” this week with disenchanted soccer moms doesn't change the constitution one iota. Only by adherence to the founding document will our civil society provide equal protection for all beliefs...no matter how kooky.

[GonzoGOP]

My problem is that the so-called social conservatives have proven that on fiscal matters they spend as much as Democrats.

My theory tends to be take away their money. That solves 90% of the problems in a single step. Then negotiate with the Social Cons and Libertarians over what is left. Like I said when there is no money to spend there isn't much you can do other than give people their freedoms.

And it turns out that without the nanny state there to give handouts people tend to turn to family, faith and community for support. That's where the Social Cons make their impact and earn their converts.

The government should not concern itself with forcing people to be moral. But it turns out that when the full cost of immorality is born by the immoral person, rather than being pawned off on the taxpayer as it is now, morality tends to be self reinforcing. For example want to during yourself into the gutter and make yourself unemployable, without nanny government to pay your way and provide "Homes for the homeless" you starve or freeze. Of course there are many church groups that will help you to get sober and clean yourself up. But they will demand that you give up the immoral lifestyle. But note that free choice is absolutely preserved. What the church groups provide is provided voluntarily, the IRS man doesn't make them give. And the drunk has the free choice to stay in the gutter or accept the hand up.

[bereanway]

Spot on. The root of our problem is a breakdown in the moral order. Adams noted “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Unfortunately, over the past 50 years our government and educational institutions have been hijacked by those who would undermine the moral order necessary for the proper functioning of our republic. Laws and the interpretation and enforcement of same is a reflection of an underlying moral consensus.

Americans have had it pounded into their heads that we must be value neutral, that all views carry equal weight therefore all traditional views of morality must be checked at the door. The result has been social programs promoting the breakdown of the family, government sanction of the murder of millions of innocents and the view that debt and credit expansion is somehow the same as wealth creation.

Morality and structure and order are all intertwined and the bedrocks of a functional civil culture. It’s too bad the foundations have been destroyed and our choices now reflect that destruction.

[Persevero]

Yes, “conservative” just equals “libertarian” in some circles. A lot more frequently on FR, too. When I argue a conservative position on a social issue on this board, I am accused of being a “nanny stater.”

[Persevero]

A ten year old was the grand marshall of an Arkansas gay parade last week.

Great stuff, huh?

[RightOnTheBorder]

There are very few aspects of social conservatism that can be successfully legislated. One need only to look at the failed war on drugs to see proof of that. While I agree with many of the goals of social conservatism (end abortion, less drug use, freedom from religious persecution) I still believe that the way to achieve them is by beating back the government to a small, relatively powerless entity. By doing this I believe both sets of conservatives will get what they want. What worries me is that I see many social conservatives who don’t care if we have a large oppressive government as long as it oppresses the correct people.

[GonzoGOP]

What worries me is that I see many social conservatives who don’t care if we have a large oppressive government as long as it oppresses the correct people.

Theocracy is not the answer. A democratically elected government of moral men is. The government should not legislate morality, but the legislature should by all means be moral. The responsibility is upon the people to not elect immoral men to office. A responsibility which unfortunately they have all but abandoned. But bringing in Iranian Mullahs, Cromwell's Puritans, or the Spanish Inquisition (and nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) is not a valid alternative.

[Pessimist]

You are correct.

If the thumpers want to split from financial conservatives, I say let ‘em.

With them out of the way, I think we gather more “centrist” voters than we’d lose.

And it’s not just getting votes. It’s about aligning idealogy.

Religionists tend toward some responisibility to “help others” which goes against the grain of liberty.

[cripplecreek]

You can always vote democrat.

If you don’t want us “Thumpers” (Nice derogatory term by the way) obviously you would be a lot happier among the democrats.

[Pessimist]

“When I argue a conservative position on a social issue on this board, I am accused of being a “nanny stater.””

Well, is that becuause your arguing “there oughta be a law”?

More law = less liberty and more gvt.

How conservative is that?

[GonzoGOP]

Religionists tend toward some responsibility to “help others” which goes against the grain of liberty.

So long as that remains a personal obligation and not a state obligation, I not only accept it, but in fact support it. It is the differences between the prohibition against the establishment of a state religion and separation of church and state. Something that Liberals seem unable to understand. The government can encourage private charity without having to pour money into it. This is largely by getting the bureaucrats out of the way so that good people can do good works.

Everyone has the absolute right to give all they have. Nobody has the right to give a single penny that was not theirs to begin with. That statement is not just fiscally conservative but moral as well.

[Codeflier]

"It’s been the abandonment of fiscal sanity for fake,

Bible-thumping nanny-state psuedo-conservatism that has destroyed our society, actually.

It used to be that family and social values were a given regardless of politics - THAT is the problem, not some politicians position on gay marriage."

Well said!

[cripplecreek]

Part of the problem is the shifting parameters. By the standards I’m seeing from the centrists I’m a Godless evolutionist bible thumper.

I can’t count the number of times my local fishwrap screamed about my congressman “preaching from the house floor” but I do know that they offered proof exactly zero times. Instead they base their feelings on the fact that he’s a Baptist minister and all the popular papers call him a fundamentalist. Basically they lie because that’s all they can do.

[The Ignorant Fisherman]

That was the point my friend. Your “belief” is in the reality of natural laws... am I right. Ones belief has to be locked on to reality to work properly.

[The Ignorant Fisherman]

Great quotes! Man... were those guys radicals.. lol... even to some who have added their “comment” to this post.

Thankd god for them. They had the vision.

http://www.learntheconstitution.com/five-thousand-year-leap.html