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?
It depends. I want a Constitutionally limited small government, but even when I agree with the social and religious viewpoints, I don't want them to be part of our government or laws. Yes, our laws and our government need to based on moral and ethical principles, but not on any specific religion, much less dogma.
Maybe individual states can find a common religious theme that they feel the need to legislate, but I won't accept it anymore on a federal level. The first amendment actually should be used to protect against that.
If the theory that social conservatism is the problem was correct, Scott Brown should have won by a landslide with his open support of gay marriage and abortion.
Really? One can't stomach the queers unless one also believes strongly in a centralized, planned economy?
I completely agree.
This thread title is an expression of how the very phrase “fiscal conservative” means torn between voting GOP or voting democrat.
Social conservatives are already fiscal conservatives, that is how a Romney/Ryan ticket naturally wins an incredible 79% of Evangelicals, the most social conservative voters in America, who are also the most fiscal conservative voting group in America.
“Fiscal Conservative” was coined to create a niche voter, one who recoils at the whole conservative package, and who wants to drop whole conservatism while retaining the economic portions that they like. By definition, it is a move to the left, and a removal of conservatives from the culture and life of the nation.
It sure doesn’t have enough single minded adherents to create a party large enough to defeat the democrats, if so, the libertarian party would amount to something. The Libertarian is the party that already embraces the politics of the one issue “fiscal conservatives”.
we need a fiscal conservatism that focuses on cutting waste and fraud, while strengthening safety nets
There isn't enough "waste and fraud" to cut in Medicare/Medicaid to come within a light-year of solvency. The march of demographics is simply that relentless.
We need either (1) a big cut in benefits, (2) a big increase in taxes, or (3) a big injection of young immigrants paying into the system, or (4) a combination of the above. There's no free lunch!
So we should roll back society and culture to 1790?
Slavery back in? Women's suffrage out? Pot perfectly okay?
Great post, point very well taken.
I don't remember "social issues" even being discussed when I first became a "conservative Republican."
I liked it that way!
A viable and effective conservative third party is a fantasy no matter how it is pitched. In addition to the nearly impossible burdens of funding, organization, staffing, and candidate recruitment, ideological disputes inevitably lead to infighting and fractures.
I’m wondering when all these “moderate” cowards on this thread are going to hike up their big girl panties and go moderate the party that actually needs it. The GOP has been moderated into a coma and it still isn’t enough for them. Seems pretty obvious that their natural domain is with their friends in the democrat party.
“what say you, fiscal and social conservatives and libertarians, is this a start?”
In order of importance (to me):
social conservative;
libertarians;
fiscal conservative (last does not mean unimportant).
It sounds like a very fine start to me. I only have one little tiny nit to pick. Actually it is a point to add:
“3) rules and regulations coming from places other than the legislature are inherently unconstitutional, and must be done away with ( epa, fda, dea, etc.)”
You left out the worst offender, IMO. The federal judiciary which created administrative law in the first place.
Otherwise I am pretty happy with your starter propositions.
Rather than waste time what do you really think it meant, you don’t think that this thread is about slavery and the women’s vote, so don’t pretend to.
I did vote for Huckabee, when I had the chance. I thought he'd be better than McCain or Romney. So far, nobody's proved me wrong.
"There isn't enough "waste and fraud" to cut in Medicare/Medicaid to come within a light-year of solvency. The march of demographics is simply that relentless. "
Our current budget reflects an economy that is seriously impaired due to decades of free trade agreements with low wage countries. Fix the economy, and you can take care of the poor. Fail to fix the economy, and we'll all be poor.
"There's no free lunch!"
Sure there is. You buy two really cheap lunches from China, putting your neighbor out of work. And then you give him one of your cheap Chinese lunches. It works great until you're out of work too, and then there's simply no lunch you can afford.
I think that's a valid observation. Social values tell you what their character, and belief/value system is. If their social values don't have a foundation for morality, then their fiscal conservatism is likely to be driven by self interest and consequently is subject to change based on the lobbying, pork, and other perks that are being offered.
To me, federalism is only way out. The Founders faced some of the same questions, and they were smart enough to know that all of the states weren’t going to agree on everything. So they devised a system where the federal government would have limited, enumerated powers focusing mainly on “national/international” type issues, with everything else left to the states, localities and most importantly, individuals. We need a real, constitutional Republican Party that is willing to let California and Massachusetts go their own way on some issues, provided that Idaho and Mississippi are allowed to do the same. Justice Thomas’ dissent in Gonzales v. Raich should be the model.
As social liberalism swept the nation, and the democrats became the libertarian party on social issues, the voters left them by the millions, and the republican party grew by the millions.
If the democrats had not squeezed in the 1965 Immigration Act back in the days when they controlled all of American government, then the democrat party of today would no longer even exist in it's current form.
Social liberalism so destroyed the democrat party, that they have not won the white vote since 1964. Now the social liberals are pursuing their works within the GOP itself.
Those who we separate out, between the categories, are seldom true Conservatives. We should certainly not refuse the one or few issue Conservatives, when they support us--that would be self-defeating insanity; but we should not imagine that there is a meaningful intellectual dichotomy when what we are really talking about is something else.
We need to understand that all real Conservatives should rally around doing something to arrest Losing America's Multi-Generational Purpose. All of the aspects of what is going wrong, reflect an increasing penchant for people to think only in terms of the moment, and forget the continuum that brought us here, and once gave us a sense of destiny, future & functional purpose.
William Flax
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.