[gogogodzilla]

The problem, which is magnified for this election, is not simply the differences between social and fiscal conservatism. It's far bigger than that.

The problem is a growing fissure between statists and small-governmentalists. And it's found throughout the political spectrum, left and right.

On the right, social conservatives are more apt to support an ever more powerful, centralized government... for only that size government is capable of delivering what they want.

After all, how can you eliminate abortion unless you there is one law over all the land proclaiming it illegal... and how can you enforce it without monitoring every woman and doctor at all times, coupled with a large enough police force to arrest them before it happens?

And that costs money. A lot of money. Money that will come from higher taxes.

And on the left, you see this play out between the communists/socialists/fascists/race baiters/unions/environmentalists and the hippy drippy ‘my body is a temple and I can do what I want with it’ crowd.

To be sure, it's fairly unbalanced between the two parties... with more small-governmentalists in the Republican party than Democrat party, and vice versa in the Democrat party. But there is enough of the opposite in each party to play spoiler. Which is why the Republicans have managed to screw the pooch in 2008... and will probably do it again in 2012.

[normy]

Good point on the small government/big government divide and that is what is frustrating. Santorum is not a small government conservative at all and Newt can really not be trusted to do the right thing.

The reason Perry is an attractive candidate is because he is a small government candidate. Not as much as Paul but far more than anyone else running. He actually believes the answers do not come from Washington. Mitt, Santorum and Newt absolutely do not believe people can handle freedom and Washington DC is where freedom is doled out. They think tinkering around in DC will fix our problem. Perry and Paul do not.

Perry happens to be more in line with the Republican Party on military issues and what I'll call "the Empire" but I think Perry is more of a "if you're going to war declare it and then go old testament on their ass" where as Paul is more along the lines of "don't even go".

Depending on what happens in this election I could see a strong, states rights, small government movement based on freedom coming out of this thing.

I actually have thought a Perry/Rand Paul ticket would be awesome for the simple fact of cutting government.

[JediJones]

I think you have failed to make the case that pro-life views lead to statism or that pro-abortion views lead to wanting a small government. That is one small issue and wouldn't have a major effect on the size of government either way. And I totally disagree with the premise that being pro-life is being statist. It is actually being constitutional. Life is a guaranteed right by the constitution and must be protected. To believe human offspring in the womb is not a human life is like believing the world is flat. It totally denies obvious scientific reality. A fetus may not be a citizen, but that constitutional right applies to any non-citizen who visits or otherwise exists within our borders.

I do agree with your thesis that social conservatives are more comfortable with big government. Obviously fiscal conservatives are in this game solely because they want a small government.

I believe there is a genuine libertarian movement, especially among young people in this country, that could have a major effect on future politics. Ron Paul has surged in this primary as compared to 4 years ago, doubling or tripling his votes. If a charismatic, Obama-like candidate eventually runs as a libertarian, either in or out of the Republican party, they will probably be able to win not too far into the future from now.

My biggest problem with the libertarian message is the focus on the federal government. It's extremely easy for them to say the federal government shouldn't do this and that, but it allows them to totally skate the issue of what the state government should do. "It should be up to the states" isn't much of a philosophy. And if they want the state government to do as little as they say they want the feds to do, then they're pretty much asking for anarchy and the law of the jungle.