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?
The original intent of the Constitution was that the national government was supposed to be the "government of the States", and not be involved in the day-to-day affairs of individual citizens. This produces a national government that is, at least cosmetically "libertarian".
For the sake of discussion, let's put a finer point on that definition and call it civil-libertarianism, as opposed to the modern definition of libertarianism which far too many associate with the Libertarian Party. In that light, I am happy to agree that our government is not only cosmetically libertarian, but civil-libertarian by nature.
If that's not acceptable to social conservatives, then they've effectively set themselves against anyone arguing for compliance with the original intent of the Constitution. I don't see how that's going to ever work for a "Constitution" party, unless it's just going to become a label, calculated to create a perception, rather than an actual statement of purpose.<
Agreed, providing one establishes such a thing as viewed through the prism of the Judeo-Christian Ethic, as the original intent of the Constitution was:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -John Adams
John Adams was absolutely right... And without some concession toward that, civil-libertarian thought must needfully wind up exactly where the Libertarian Party's thought process will inevitably go: Anarchy.
By the same token, even conservative Christians can be bent pretty easily toward social justice issues - If their primary principles are not being served, they tend to fall back to their secondary principles - Huckabee was buoyed to a great height by Christians (almost exclusively) because he stood for those primary principles, when none of the leading candidates did... And his big-government ways were not unpalatable to many Christians because of their secondary principles (social justice, helping others, and etc.) Would that they had hauled up Tancredo or Hunter instead - And perhaps they would have, had they the guidance of other conservatives to listen to.
This is a perfect example of what one may get if we don't keep all Conservative principles in mind... and support candidates that all Conservatives can endorse.
The Democrats are hardly a "libertarian party," on social issues. The intrusion of the Federal Government into questions of differing social values, is anything but libertarian, anything--for that matter--but Constitutional.
The liberty minded Founding Fathers, left all purely social questions to the States except those which related to sound money & the commercial union they envisioned, where the States delegated an actual measure of control to the Federal Government.
The present situation, where children cannot pray in school, and communities are forbidden by largely Democratic appointees on the Federal Bench, to even post religious symbols, and States are practically forbidden from trying to control their own suffrage, is diametrically contrary to what the Founders intended.
Or consider which party is largely responsible for constantly attacking the right to keep & bear arms; or the right to retain the fruits of one's own labor. There is nothing, nothing, remotely "libertarian" about any of this.
William Flax
Yes, stiff-arming the SoCons worked out so well last time.
That's a favorite quote of the social conservatives. Let's not forget that John Adams had some serious differneces of opinions with some of the other Founders on matters of morality and religion. He put those differences aside when it came to matters of the republic.
Careful you don't construct a "Constitution Party" that's too "coservative" for the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or Tom Paine.
The response I would make is: what if the people are increasingly not "moral and religious"?? Can government make them so??
And can a candidate who wants to make them so win a majority of the national electorate??
My guess is that Mr. Adams would answer in the negative on both counts.
Let me know if and when you want to find out how economics actually works. I'll be happy to point you to some good websites and books (mostly from the Austrian school).
Until then, have a great life, FRiend.
Yes they are, they are the ones responsible for the vast libertarian gains of the last 60 years, and the near total destruction of our nation, and the resulting leftist economics that comes from social liberalism.
Here are the "fiscal conservative"/libertarian positions on the social issues, and they match the democrat party pretty well, especially it's larger goals for social issues, some of these issues the left fights for incrementally, to keep from losing the national vote, but they do fight to advance all of these, just not as obviously and openly as the libertarian party does.
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Or even just consider how the Democrat party is attempting to interfere with matters of religious conscience in trying to force people, and that includes people who own businesses, to subsidise forms of birth control, against their religious conscience. And consider what their agenda might be when they are making their cases in doing so almost exclusively against Christian believers, while Muslims have gotten exemptions.
Or consider the matter of homosexual “marriage”. It would be bad enough if that were the only issue, but that’s merely the basket into which the homosexual interest groups are putting all of their eggs, because framing it as denying them a “civil right” appeals even to those who don’t agree with homosexual “marriage” in and of itself. In some states, young children in public schools can be taught to celebrate and support the homosexual agenda, and their parents don’t even have the option to “opt out”, they needn’t even necessarily be told what their children are being taught. Their daughters can be given birth control without the consent or the knowledge of the parents.
But people are worried about a Christians wanting to inflict a “theocracy” on everyone else? If so, we’re not trying very hard. Unlike Islam, Christians don’t even believe people can be forced to adopt Christianity. If the decision is not taken of one’s own free will, it’s not a legitimate decision.
As for abortion-I think it can be likened to slavery. How many people now would say, just let the states decide for themselves if slavery is immoral and evil? If Crhristians or anyone else believe that abortion is murder, how can they just say , let the states decide for themselves if they want to allow baby murder? If that’s an option, we fought a war to end the evil lf slavery for nothing. The principles are the same.
As I have said here a score of times, my state of West Virginia is chock full of the Huck demographic.
Pro-God, pro-coal and oil, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military.....but also pro-trial lawyer and pro-all the government cheese they can gobble.
So the candidate who will win here is one who pushes all the right moral buttons while at the same time promising to keep the entitlements trough full forever and ever.
And I believe that a lot of those outside my state who repeatedly tell pollsters that they are "conservative" will, when push comes to shove in the voting booth, repeatedly put their social issues aside in favor of government cheese.
Nope, because Liz Warren ran a 100% "Republicans eat babies" campaign, and Scott Brown has an (R) after his name. In Massachusetts, Republicans eat babies.
The problem is that maybe 60-70 percent of the population today believes that abortion should not be allowed for reasons of convenience, but should be allowed for incest, rape, or serious birth defects.
And of course, that is a position which social conservatives (at least as represented here on FR) find utterly unacceptable.
For them to run candidates who say "God wants you to carry your uncle's child to term" into the teeth of that opinion is simply to invite political defeat, again and again and again.
And that's really the difference I see between fiscal and social conservatism. In the fiscal world, there is no need to completely fix everything instantly. It's OK to do things incrementally as long as you've changed the direction away from more statism toward more freedom.
But most so-cons view even a molecule of incrementalism as acceptance of immorality.
We also wrote and ratified an amendment to end slavery.
Absent historical evidence that the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment intended for it to abolish the practice of abortion, I believe the principle of "limited and enumerated" powers dictates that no such power was intended and therefore not granted. I've had bucket loads of perjoratives and epithets hurled in my direction by self proclaimed "conservatives" for holding that view.
If there is no place for that argument to aired in a civil manner in this "Constitution Party", let me know now.
....even when I agree with the social and religious viewpoints, I don’t want them to be part of our government or laws.
I’m not really sure where this is what the SoCons look for. Most SoCon issues are about not funding abortion through taxes, not forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control, supporting marriage because of the benfits it offers society, not encouraging single parenting with handouts, etc.
The only example I can think of religious enshrinement might be posting the Ten Commandments, but even there, I doubt that if Buddhism had a list of things like “Don’t Murder,” anybody would oppose them being put up too.
The short of it is, even the most Libertarian should welcome joining with Social Conservatism, because the alternative is not a Liberal Utopia, but rather, full on Marxism. Either we go with SoCons, or we hand things to the Communists. Is it close?
I accept that wholeheartedly - but even they, in their daily lives, were steeped in Christian morality... I am *not* speaking of religion here - I am speaking of a singular moral ethic - As bawdy as Franklin was, I dare say that he would be appalled by where we are today. He might well be inclined to partake of some of the fruits thereof, but he would know in his very nature that what we have now is untenable. And I think that Jefferson would be offended by the use of his position by the libertine democrats... And the same for Paine by the anarchists.
Their basic societal norm was far closer to the Puritans than anything we have today. Our country cannot survive it's current state of moral turpitude... and it is precisely the declination of the root of our birth, that Judeo-Christian Ethic, which is the cause. it is being substituted by multi-culturalism and relative morality - Humanism as religious folks would call it. It is my assertion that if we are cut off from that root, we will surely die.
ALL law is needfully a moral decision - Law always serves some moral function. It is a matter of which morals you would like, not that there can be a moral-less position to anything... As being moral-less is a moral position in itself... Bob Dylan was right - "you gotta serve somebody".
How then can one have LESS law (less government) in a condition where there is more than one ethic? multiple ethical positions, or far worse, the sliding-scale of ethics we have now can only result in more law, and more governance... That is the heart of Adams' quote, in my mind.
Perhaps I can make such a distinction and see the compatibilities more easily having grown up in the Rocky-Mountain West, where libertarian thought is very strong, and independence is valued highly, without tampering with the basic ideas of right and wrong. Here, that Christian ethic and civil-libertarian principle are very easily combined, And I cannot see a Conservative conscience being properly driven without both.
From my home page:
___________________________________________________________________
I’m a big tent republican.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1821435/posts?page=18455
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Folks such as Rudy or Romney flunk some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy or romney from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot and romneybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter or Palin, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy or romney. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
___________________________________________________________________
Bottom line, we cannot have an American culture without Christianity.
Prepare for bad times.
We had a third-party candidate (actually more like a twelfth- or fifteenth-party candidate) posting here on FR, whose apparent desire, once you got through all the obfuscation, was to end abortion nationwide by executive order.
Many of those who supported him were probably under the delusion that they also supported the Constitution.
That's a formula for failure.
I think that you are lying, my guess is that the "pro-God" social conservative voters are the most conservative in your state, and that people that think like you about God and Christians, are the most liberal.
Nationally the Evangelical vote went 79% for Romney/Ryan, and those with no particular religion, went 26% for Romney/Ryan, I doubt that W. Virginia went in the opposite direction.
This state for eighty years has voted in governors, state attorneys, and state legislators who are solid Democrat and completely in the pockets of the unions and trial lawyers. Our governor can hardly wait to implement Obamacare. All this despite being one of the most socially conservative states in the country.
I stand 100% by my assertion up-thread.
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.