Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Social Conservatism vs. Fiscal Conservatism

Posted on 11/20/2012 8:42:54 AM PST by Scooter100

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-259 next last
To: Scooter100

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.


51 posted on 11/20/2012 10:11:20 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

“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.


52 posted on 11/20/2012 10:13:47 AM PST by Psalm 144 (For Chicken Little the sky is always falling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

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.


53 posted on 11/20/2012 10:17:12 AM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer’s successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
"Danny, you sound like the archtypical Huckabee voter."

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.

54 posted on 11/20/2012 10:22:47 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
"I have yet to see a fiscal conservative/social “moderate” hold firm to fiscal conservatism in any meaningful way."

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.

55 posted on 11/20/2012 10:23:14 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

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.


56 posted on 11/20/2012 10:28:13 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar
I don't remember "social issues" even being discussed when I first became a "conservative Republican."

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.

57 posted on 11/20/2012 10:29:45 AM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer’s successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100
The distinction is not between so-called "social conservatism" & "fiscal conservatism." Fiscal issues are very, very important social issues. How a Government handles the resources of the people goes to the essence of the relationship--the compact, in the American system--between the citizens & Government, at any level.

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

58 posted on 11/20/2012 10:32:24 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
ITA.

Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.

John Adams
59 posted on 11/20/2012 10:34:46 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
60 posted on 11/20/2012 10:38:38 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Truthsearcher
[Truthsearcher:] The Libertarians’ failure to understand this is why their advocated solution of the Libertarian state is as impracticable as the socialist/communist utopia.

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.

61 posted on 11/20/2012 10:45:05 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
As social liberalism swept the nation, and the democrats became the libertarian party on social issues,

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

62 posted on 11/20/2012 10:47:40 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

Yes, stiff-arming the SoCons worked out so well last time.


63 posted on 11/20/2012 10:53:40 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -John Adams

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.

64 posted on 11/20/2012 10:58:07 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Social conservatives use that John Adams quote a lot. And I accept that there is truth in it.

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.

65 posted on 11/20/2012 10:58:13 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
sigh....

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.

66 posted on 11/20/2012 11:05:29 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
The Democrats are hardly a "libertarian party," on social issues.

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.

67 posted on 11/20/2012 11:08:02 AM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer’s successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

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.


68 posted on 11/20/2012 11:10:43 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Given the incomprehensible popularity of Huckabee

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.

69 posted on 11/20/2012 11:12:57 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
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.

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.

70 posted on 11/20/2012 11:21:31 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel
how can they just say , let the states decide for themselves if they want to allow baby murder?

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.

71 posted on 11/20/2012 11:23:31 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel
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.

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.

72 posted on 11/20/2012 11:25:34 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: tentmaker

....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?


73 posted on 11/20/2012 11:26:17 AM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Careful you don't construct a "Constitution Party" that's too "coservative" for the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or Tom Paine.

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.

74 posted on 11/20/2012 11:37:15 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

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.

___________________________________________________________________


75 posted on 11/20/2012 11:42:02 AM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

Bottom line, we cannot have an American culture without Christianity.

Prepare for bad times.


76 posted on 11/20/2012 11:42:32 AM PST by donna (Pray for revival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Well, yeah.

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.

77 posted on 11/20/2012 11:44:46 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Fair enough. Just want to make sure that's understood "up front". Some people will read into that quote specific religious strictures of their own practice of Christianity, and try to make that a litmus test of "conservativism".

That's a formula for failure.

78 posted on 11/20/2012 11:47:17 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
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.

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.

79 posted on 11/20/2012 11:48:28 AM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer’s successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
West Virginia voted for Romney for no other reason than Obama's war on the coal industry.

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.

80 posted on 11/20/2012 11:59:33 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Brilliant.


81 posted on 11/20/2012 12:02:58 PM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

You are claiming something that flies in the face of everything that we know about politics and voting in America, including the 2012 election.

You are claiming that in W. Virginia, that the Evangelicals and social conservatives are the liberal democrat voters, which seems to imply that the anti-Christians, like you, are voting majority republican.

I would like to see your evidence to support your bizarre claim, where are your exit polls?


82 posted on 11/20/2012 12:07:38 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer’s successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
Now THIS...

Is a discussion that needs to happen....

Agree 100%. This is the most popular topic of discussion going on in my house in recent weeks, and of great interest. Maybe the fiscally conservative socially moderate combo was rare at one time, but I really believe it's growing substantially - especially among the young.

I don't see rigid old school social conservatism getting stronger - just the opposite. I don't see adherence to it, putting it above strong support for limited government and individual rights & responsibilities, winning many converts in the future.

My argument is that a huge central government is the overriding issue - not social issues. If the government gets too much power (which it already has, so this entire discussion is probably moot), social issues won't matter. They'll simply be dictated by the regime in power. We're seeing that already per the hard left Dems + soft left GOPe elitists running our lives.

I think the Republican party is dead as a brand. Even content-wise it's rushing to become Dem-lib lite. Who cares. I wasted my vote and contributions YET again this year on R's - to keep from "splitting the vote." But based upon recent voting trends, I think it's clear there's not enough non-parasite vote to worry about splitting anymore. May as well vote my conscience from here on out and go with a third party. R's aren't going to win ever again anyway. Time to weather a few ultra-lib Dem election wins (like we have any choice anyway?) and start to get rid of this corrupt two-party system to grow some third parties while the Dem-libs run everything in the ground. Unless of course the entire system collapses in the interim and voting is pointless - which is much more likely based upon where we're at as a nation right now.

IMHO, the parasites & looters are now in full control. Only hope I see is balkanization of the corrupt American two-party dominated political system into multiple smaller parties that form ruling coalitions, as is the case in some other countries. If it starts happening to the dying traditional GOPe adherents that are becoming more & more incompatible to try and keep together, and is recognized as such by many, I think it will happen soon after to the always-on-the-edge-of-chaos-and-mutiny traditional Dem factions as well. If we can get to 4 or 5 substantive political parties organized around actual ideology rather than the D vs. R high school football rivalry mentality where ideology and real issues don't even matter to most, the landscape will change and there may be hope. I'm tired of beating the dead Republican horse. I got off it when they nominated McNasty and made the mistake of jumping on at the last second both the last two presidential elections. No more.

83 posted on 11/20/2012 12:15:10 PM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
I believe Mark Levin was speaking of your kind.

We conservatives, we do not accept bipartisanship in the pursuit of tyranny. Period. We will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude. Period. We will not abandon our child to a dark and bleak future. We will not accept a fate that is alien to the legacy we inherited from every single future generation in this country. We will not accept social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats who treat us like lab rats, rather than self-sufficient human beings. There are those in this country who choose tyranny over liberty. They do not speak for us, 57 million of us who voted against this yesterday, and they do not get to dictate to us under our Constitution.

We are the alternative. We will resist. We're not going to surrender to this. We will not be passive, we will not be compliant in our demise. We're not good losers, you better believe we're sore losers! A good loser is a loser forever. Now I hear we're called 'purists.' Conservatives are called purists. The very people who keep nominating moderates, now call us purists the way the left calls us purists. Yeah, things like liberty, and property rights, individual sovereignty, and the Constitution, and capitalism. We're purists now. And we have to hear this crap from conservatives, or pseudo-conservatives, Republicans.


84 posted on 11/20/2012 12:16:43 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I'm saying you should not use the 2012 presidential election as a benchmark for how West Virginians generally vote. It is in every way an outlier.

West Virginia votes in liberal Democrats for governor, statewide offices, state legislators (and one RINO in Congress) over and over and over and over and over again. If you think that is because they are agnostics and libertarians, you don't know the state, period.

85 posted on 11/20/2012 12:17:10 PM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

The question is, who gets to decide what’s a “big rock” that has to go in first, and what’s “rice” that will fit in later if there’s room for it? One man’s “rice” may be another man’s “rock”.


86 posted on 11/20/2012 12:18:46 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

In 2008, the most social conservative voting (Evangelical) block voted 66% for McCain/Palin.

We know that the democrats won the social libera/anti-christian vote, the left always does.


87 posted on 11/20/2012 12:19:46 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer’s successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100
This is like medieval philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Face it, both social and fiscal conservatism is dead in this country.

Not that conservatives are literally dead; but they are no longer the majority.

The hands out, gimme’s have won. And it didn't happen just in the USA. Sarkozy in France lost earlier to the same coalition of parasites.

With four more years of Obama I don't see things getting better at all... Yet they'll keep blaming us for all the problems. We're not giving fast enough...

88 posted on 11/20/2012 12:21:18 PM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
Oh please, not the Austrian school again. Bring back the gold standard and the deflationary depressions every 20 years that went with it. Why not just go straight to a barter system if you're so fond of the dark ages.

Here's what you need to read. And fortunately, they've got some good free excerpts from the book that might open your mind a little.

Excerpts from "Why Free Trade Doesn't Work, What to Replace it with and Why"

89 posted on 11/20/2012 12:22:29 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100
I understand your intent here and have considered this in the past. My belief is that the social debate will not be won by either side, conservative or liberal. The arguments by social conservatives have the same vigor as arguments by social liberals, because both sides believe they are correct they will not compromise. You are correct to recognize that this is the wedge that maintains the two party status quo and prevents change. As long as it is intact gridlock will continue as we approach insolvency. If one side attempts to drop social issues from their platform it will tip the balance, this is already happening.
Personally I have put more emphasis on fiscal issues lately because 1) This is not debatable as social issues are and is capable of drawing support across the political spectrum and 2) I believe that a large part of social liberalism is dependent on funding that cannot exist if the fiscal side wins.
In summary I have little faith that things will change, and virtually none that the gop-e can be brought to the right enough for this to happen. I think we should reconsider cloward-piven: Insolvency is a mathematical certainty, what happens next is the tricky part of the theory.
90 posted on 11/20/2012 12:28:17 PM PST by Roland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
It's a Venn diagram, man. A good sized chunk of evangelicals cross the line and vote Democrat, and a good sized chunk of other Christians, of Jews, and of non believers vote Republican.

the most social conservative voting (Evangelical) block voted 66% for McCain/Palin.

Which if my math is right, means evangelicals can demand a platform which is precisely tailored to their views - and win - if they make up at least three-fourths of the electorate. By all means, have a go at that if you care to try.

91 posted on 11/20/2012 12:32:12 PM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Roland

The only way to win the Hispanic vote and make it conservative, is social conservatism, Protestants have already demonstrated this with Hispanics.

Protestant Hispanics voted 44% GOP in 2000, 56% in 2004, and 48% GOP in 2008, Protestants (I suppose Evangelicals) reached them, penetrated to something inside of them that opened their eyes and enabled them to see the left as it is, and where good people belong.


92 posted on 11/20/2012 12:37:33 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer’s successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
You've obviously confused me with a diehard free-trader, which I'm not. I believe in reciprocity.

But it's NOT a cure for the massive overleveraging of the last twenty years, nor is it a cure for the Ponzi-esqe structures of Medicare and Social Security.

It's completely disingenuous to claim that there is a quick or painless fix for where we have gotten ourselves. A healthy dose of austerity is in our future even if we do all the correct things.

93 posted on 11/20/2012 12:40:24 PM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

You are selling anti-conservative, anti-Christian trash.

Socail conservatives are the most conservative voters in you state, yet you lie and attack them as the liberal voters.

Your block, the non/anti-religious, are the most liberal voters in your state, and you want more of them.

In 2004, in West Virginia, Bush got 66% of the Evangelical vote, and 36% of the noreligion vote, your anti-God group needs fixing.

We see the message over and over, social conservatives are the conservatives in america.


94 posted on 11/20/2012 12:44:55 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer’s successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You’re demonstrating that if a place is made for social conservative issues on the table, they’re going to claim ownwership of and exclusive rights to the entire table.


95 posted on 11/20/2012 12:59:01 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
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.

Where SoCons want to not fund abortion or sexual practice related expenses, they are being conservative, keeping government out of our private lives and religion.

Where SoCons want government to regulate abortion and sexual practice, they are not being conservative, inviting government to regulate our lives based on their religion.

96 posted on 11/20/2012 1:05:13 PM PST by tentmaker (Galt's Gulch is a state of mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

What do you mean?

W. Virginia is pretty obscure and hard to get data for, how does Texas and California fit in to your statement?


97 posted on 11/20/2012 1:06:48 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer’s successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I've seen it here many times.

Christian conservatives here on FR go purple in the face when contemplating the existence of atheists and agnostics who vote conservative, despite their contention that it's a tiny minority. They keep trying to read me out of the movement, and I resolutely refuse to be read out.

At the same time, the millions of Protestants and Catholics who are out there voting Democrat again and again don't seem to give them much cause for concern.

I have to think that it's because I'm "inside the tent" so to speak, and my existence here as a conservative non-believer is a much greater offence to their world view than are the opinions of the liberal believers, who are not to be found on FR or any of the other conservative circles they frequent.

98 posted on 11/20/2012 1:16:23 PM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: tentmaker
Where SoCons want government to regulate abortion and sexual practice

Abortion has to be against the law, that is a life and death fact, not religion, and people aren't saying that you and your boyfriend can't have sex, they are saying that we already have defined marriage, and that definition stands, and you can't force homosexuality onto the military and Boy Scouts.

99 posted on 11/20/2012 1:17:23 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer’s successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: tentmaker

Only liberals believe that people can be made virtuous via legislative enactment.


100 posted on 11/20/2012 1:19:07 PM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-259 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson