Posted on 11/20/2012 8:42:54 AM PST by Scooter100
I am wondering about the structure of a third "Constitutional" party. Would it be better to form a party exclusively on a fiscal issues basis? What would be the pros and cons of taking social issues completely off the table? I mean, are there really enough "social issues" in the text of the Constitution itself to warrant making them a permanent policy of a new party and subsequently risking vicious debate and division? I guess I am thinking of the inevitability of Conservatives locking antlers with the "socially" left wing of the Libertarians", who are otherwise fiscally right wing. Shouldn't social issues be contained closer to the people, i.e., at the state/local levels?
“Shouldn’t social issues be contained closer to the people, i.e., at the state/local levels?”
I think so. The greatest common denominator would be going back to the original intent. Real federalism, with regional and state differences, and a small, focused and limited national government.
That model died generations ago. Whether it can come back before the Beast on the Potomac implodes under its own weight is unknown.
We want as little government intrustion into our lives as possible. THAT is by definition fiscally conservative.
Of course social issues should be decided by the states or, more fundamentally, by home and church.
Feds have no business putting their fingers in all they do.
That said, not enough Conservatives will back a party limited to fiscal issues. There’s a rampant “me, me, me” mentality in the far right that demands all or nothing, and those people are not going to back someone unless s/he’s 100% in agreement with them both fiscally and socially.
So they sit at home or vote for fringe candidates.
The idiotic Obama voter isn’t the only one destroying us from within.
Your problem is that the only unity is among the fascists. The “conservatives” are a bunch of very special and narrow interests who can hardly pass at the bus station without stabbing each other.
The problem is that social issues always seem to take precedence over fiscal issues. So you cannot split them. Our fiscal issues cannot be solved unless we eliminate some of the social programs that the left pushes. Free contraceptives is a social issue that will cost us fiscally.
There is a Constitutional argument for the Right to Life — 5th Amendment (Federal) and 14th Amendment (State).
There is a Constitutional argument about the Free Exercise of Religion (1st Amendement) and the role of States in making religious statements or intruding on religion (14th Amendment). Of course, there are also free speech arguments, etc. ... but most of the Constiutional issues in this regard are against government involvement.
Otherwise, social issues are largely 10th Amendment issues.
SnakeDoc
I think so too. Perhaps we call it "The Federalist Party" with all social issues out. Seems to me, with these things totally off the platform, would have a very wide appeal. In fact, it could bring the country together again.
It’s already done. You’re a Libertarian.
There is what appears to be a false dichotomy presented that's forcing a division of philosophy into either "socially liberal" or "socially conservative" camps. The end result is that every discussion starts with arguing about what legislation people think Congress should pass, when the first question that ought to be asked is whether they are even within the original intent of their enumerated powers to assume control of it.
Gary Johnson. Took 1% of the vote.
Social issues or more broadly, morality defines the character of the nation. Christian conservatives value social issues and will not give them up due to the teachings of the Bible.
The GOP-e may THINK that they can put forward only fiscal issues, but they will not have the support of a substantial portion of the base if they take that route. They will continue to lose elections without the social conservatives.
Or to put a sharper point on it, social conservatives are not able to elect a candidate by themselves. Likewise, fiscal conservatives will not be able to do so either. It is only when BOTH the fiscal and social conservatives support a candidate (or issue) that there is a chance of winning a race.
“It’s already done. You’re a Libertarian.”
Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!
Given the incomprehensible popularity of Huckabee, that's a pretty dubious claim.
I think there are a lot of pro-life and anti-gay folks out there who also are keen on redistributionist taxation, "sticking it to the rich" and their own specific government handouts.
We want as little government intrustion into our lives as possible. THAT is by definition fiscally conservative.
Who are those people calling themselves "social conservatives" that are so enamoured of the drug war they defend the "substantial effects" doctrine of the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause?
Pray tell?
How can one separate their moral conscience from their fiscal responsibility?
My moral beliefs are the very road upon which my fiscal car is driven. Unless I divorce the two I can never move forward fiscally.
To divorce my moral responsibility from my fiscal responsibility would mean to turn my back on God, the One who sets the standard for my moral beliefs.
When I answer the question of going forward without social issues dominating my way in politics, I can only offer this answer,
“If I wanted to be a Libertarian, I would have joined the libertarian party.”
Fiscal issues are generally issues of liberty, and far deeper than just “fiscal” or “economic.” There damned well is a moral component to money, or fiscal issues, and as long as those only focused on social issues contend that only social issues are moral issues, then there will be a fissure between conservatives.
Conversely, as long as those who are not at all interested in social issues pretend that the two are not linked, they will cause a fissure.
There is sancitity of life - INSIDE and OUTSIDE of the womb. The sanctity of a man’s life, his time, his talent, is defined by his property, for which he exchanged his time and his talent. This matters. We must understand both are true. And we must understand that a man who is not free to have his own property, is of absolutely no good for the unborn.
I’m about sick of folks like Dobson, who get paid by Tax Exempt organizations, poo pooing “fiscal” issues frankly. I’m tired of RINO’s not understanding the deeper issues as well.
Abortion, for example, or gay marriage -- both of them very hot social issues for social conservatives -- have obvious impact on governmental fiscal activities, tax policy, for example. Religious freedom is fast becoming just as important a social/fiscal issue.
The Republicans, of course, at the top are happy to mush/blur/confuse anything "conservative."
My expectation is that a party that championed fiscal conservatism and laisse-faire positions on social issues (i.e. run-of-the-mill libertarianism in America today) will get very little support from social conservatives. If tax policy is going to benefit abortionists and gay-marriage proponent, why support someone who claims to be fiscally conservative?
It depends on the ‘social’ issue. Issues like Abortion are generally considered federal issues on our side because they directly involve the individual’s right to existence, something that shouldn’t be legislated away by any level of government.
The definition of marriage directly involves Congress’ responsibility to define weights and measures (legal definitions that are necessary for the function of law are considered a measure).
Maybe we should look at how we argue these points instead of shoving them by the wayside? One of our faults is we argue these points from our perspective, not from the perspective of those we are trying to convince. If we just argue that ‘marriage is defined by the Bible as....’ that does nothing to someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible. Saying Abortion is a ‘sin’ does nothing to convince people who don’t have our same moral foundation.
We have been preaching to the choir in our arguments- a choir that is already on our side anyway. We need to look at how we sell these social issues (and all issues) to educate and convince those who are not already on our side but could be convinced.
Well, don't think that it hasn't crossed my mind since the election.
However, something really new, something with a very simple, uncomplicated, yet strict constitutional scope might generate some real enthusiasm. I'm for "The Federalist Party", or even "The Constitutionalist Party".
If I have another coffee I may wake up from this dream.
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.