Skip to comments.The Abandonment of Social Conservatism for Fiscal Conservatism
Posted on 06/30/2010 7:52:49 AM PDT by 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 Natures 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at theignorantfishermen.com ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
A ten year old was the grand marshall of an Arkansas gay parade last week.
Great stuff, huh?
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.