Skip to comments.'Fiscal' Conservatism Needs 'Social' Conservatism
Posted on 01/21/2013 9:48:38 PM PST by ReformationFan
For some years now, we have been told about a major division within American conservatism: fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives.
This division is hurting conservatism and hurting America -- because the survival of American values depends on both fiscal and social conservatism. Furthermore, the division is logically and morally untenable. A conservative conserves all American values, not just economic ones.
By "social conservatism," I am referring to the second and third components of what I call the American Trinity -- liberty, "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum."
It is worth noting that a similar bifurcation does not exist on the left. One never hears the term "fiscal liberals." Why not? Because those who consider themselves liberals are liberal across the board -- fiscally and socially.
The left understands that values are a package. Apparently, many conservatives -- libertarians, for example -- do not. They think that we can sustain liberty while ignoring God and religion and ignoring American nationalism and exceptionalism.
It is true that small government and liberty are at the heart of the American experiment. But they are dependent on two other values: a God-based religious vigor in the society and the melting pot ideal.
Or, to put it another way, small government and fiscal conservatism will not survive the victory of social leftism.
The Founding Fathers made clear that liberty is dependent upon not only small government but also society's affirming God-based values. Not having imbibed the Enlightenment foolishness that people are basically good, the founders understood that in order for a society to prosper without big government, its citizens have to hold themselves accountable to something other than -- higher than -- the brute force of the state. That something is God and the Judeo-Christian religions that are its vehicle.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
But Social Conservatives must learn to stop nominating crackpots that give away easy Senate wins like Akin, Mourdock and Angle did, or at least teach them they must not help Dems by saying stupid stuff.
Those give-ways to Dems were mortal sins. We gotta look at Reid’s ugly face everyday attacking Republicans on TV largely thanks to them.
Yet somehow we are asked to think that a bit of twiddling with tax rates is the only thing required to fix all this.
Aside from Angle, there was no reason to believe Akin or Mourdock would lose. Look at the supposedly “safe” candidates we nominated: Mack in FL, Lingle in HI, Hoekstra in MI, Rehberg in MT, Wilson in NM, Berg in ND, Allen in VA, Thompson in WI, etc., all failed just as miserably.
I’m not completely onboard that it is a conservative position for government to be in the business of messing into social issues.
My brand of conservatism thinks the government should provide for the national defense, take care of federal highways and the like.
And if we took care of our fiscal house many of the social ills would cure themselves. It is the inability of one parent to stay home and raise their kids due to high taxes that is at the root of many social problems.
Are fiscal conservatives libertarians? Some are, some aren't. Some want a law.
It is a pity so many conservatives, hyphenated and otherwise, spend so damned much time piddling about how many angels can/should dance on a pinhead, instead of fighting the Communist enemies of the Republic, who pushed this Godless decadence at the US population relentlessly, especially targeting our youth (the morally vulnerable) and the economicaly vulnerable as well (esp. the poor).
We are reaping the benefits of this circular firing squad, just as the Communists hoped we would, and they are marching forward with their agenda even as we prattle.
Who was responsible for nominating Mitt Romney and John McCain for president. Are you going to try and pin them on social conservatives too?
“...small government and fiscal conservatism will not survive the victory of social leftism.”
This is true. Sorry. The libertarians are wrong. One cannot have small government when the vast majority of citizens are immoral and/or unwilling to restrain the sinful impulses that are a natural part of human life. We are riding on the momentum of morality left from previous generations, but it’s coming to an end. The closest we ever came to a libertarian society was at the founding. It’s not realistic to believe majorities will now vote against their own selfish interests to restrain the federal government. Voting against one’s own interests is also a socially conservative virtue.
I think your wrong. I am a conservative, both Fiscal and Social, but that’s just me... I don’t think their strongly linked.
It is such common sense! You can not take the intellect out of man-—and still have something that resembles normal “man” in his fullness.
You can not remove “emotions” (base instincts) and still have something that resembles normal “man”.
Morality is being Virtuous. Virtue is Excellence-—being the Best you can be—the most Just, most Truthful, the most Courageous, the most Wise, etc.—The idea of Virtue was perfected by Christian Ethics. It is so perfect because the idea of “self-sacrifice” and trust and Love is perfect for civil societies and flourishing children. Social Conservatism is Christian Ethics—no other ethical system works, as well for all human beings and as well in US since both are embedded with Natural Laws and our Rights come from God.
Without morality, base instincts will rule man’s behavior, instead of the intellect. It is immaturity, not conducive to anything positive—especially flourishing economics.
There can be no trust when men lie, cheat and steal, or worse. That will always lead to uncivil societies and need for a police state——where there is always chaos and government interference. No “flourishing” (good economics) will happen when people have no trust and respect for others.
Our Founders (and all geniuses since Socrates—until Marx) stated that all Republics needed to promote Virtue. Without Virtue, there can be no Freedom.
Virtue is habituated in young children. That used to be the purpose of ALL education in Western Civilization from Socrates up until John Dewey, who took out the curricula that promoted Christian Ethics—the McGuffey Readers—all Classical literature-—best of the best and the Bible. Note: John Dewey was a Fabian Socialist who wanted to destroy Christianity-—he forced moral relativism into the curricula. Eventually all mention of “God” was eliminated.
Study the Cultural Marxists. They hated Christianity and devised a way to collapse Western Civilization-—it was to destroy Virtue.
Mitt Romney had himself a crackpot moment with his 47% comment, matching those three.
My point is to learn the right lesson from those, SOcons should be the first ones enraged at those others as they made the movement look like nutbags and they should not want a repeat of it.
Those three blew up their own races. Now maybe it was party overconfidence on the issue?? Or they are just all stupid?
in fact, in the language of mathematics. i’ll go much farther:
“social conservatism” == conservatism.
“fiscal conservatism” == nothing.
It was obviously poor judgment in discussing an issue they shouldn’t have touched... but for these two, what about all the other “safe” candidates I cited that should’ve won ? Far more of them and yet the intense focus is on Akin & Mourdock.
I don't necessarily consider all of the nominees you mentioned to be crackpots, but I'll admit they ran inept campaigns. Leftists and the media (I repeat myself), are going to come out with guns blazing (LOL) against any truly conservative candidate. Conservatives need to be prepared for that. We also have to be prepared to compromise a bit to move the ball to the right. I'm talking real compromise, where our guys propose big moves to the right but settle for something less. Compromise doesn't mean always giving the left half (or more) of whatever THEY propose.
How strangely like the meme; I like Sarah Palin, but.
How about being sick of losing for a change instead of being angry at God.
Justice is a Virtue-—and governments have to promote Justice—which means they have to promote morality. Justice is the Queen of Virtues.
As Socrates and all the Founders stated (and all geniuses until Marx)-—that all Republics have to promote public Virtue to remain Free. Without Virtue, there can be no freedom. Western Civ was great because of the Virtues promoted first by the Greek Masters and then the Stoics and then the Christian religion which created the Age of Reason and the Renaissance—it was so superior to all other systems.
So, government has to promote all the ideas in the Constitution—so children understand that we have Rights from God and all human beings have dignity and worth. Natural Rights from God. That is “social” issues. Prager’s point—is that you can never remove “social” from human beings. They are social animals-—Aristotle used the term Political-—but it means the same thing.
Since we have to deal with other humans in a “society”—we have to have a Code of Ethics-—ours was Christian Ethics. It has to be taught to all —so you don’t have chaos.
It is like having a Basketball game and thinking you can have the game—and have no “rules”. Won’t work-—human’s need to have the “Rules” of the game—set and not changed all the time. For economics-—you need society to be predictable in the long term—have trust (same ethical system). You need the Rules set—in stone is good when they are close to perfect in the first place, like Christian Ethics.
We could immediately lower some of our taxes if we would stop putting people in jail for personal use of marijuana and other substances. Since about half of all prisoners are in jail for crime of that type, we should also start releasing them. What difference does it make if we finance government prisons or outsource to the prison/industrial complex of private prisons. We end up paying for it either way. Personally, I have no desire to make some company rich for this kind of stupidity.
This is one example of the very real difference between libertarian type thinking and other forms of conservatism.
How do you think we had such a string of Dems in DC?
Berg got outvoted by only 3000 votes--close enough to ask for a recount.
This explains it perfectly for me. I cannot sign onto fully to a Libertarian Party. Sorry, you cannot remove God from the earlier blueprint from our founders. I don't understand their thinking to connect each point. One has to hold the other together. America is becoming a place for endorsing bad behavior/anything goes and the state run media lies. I should say... deliberately lies, that is.
Berg also was simply a weak candidate who lucked out by catching a wave in 2010 with John Hoeven at the top of the ticket. Had he run for reelection to the House, he probably would’ve won easily. Ultimately, we should’ve run Kevin Cramer instead. I expect Rep. Cramer will be the nominee against Heitkamp in ‘18 (since Gov. Dalrymple will be 70 by then, too old to start a Senate career). Shocking to realize that that particular Senate seat hasn’t elected a Republican since the maverick Wild Bill Langer in 1958.
Go vote with the dems, and stop wasting our time. TYVM.
And therein lies the problem, your brand doesnt work.
Get off it, the tea party and conservatives are delivering historic victories while the GOPe is losing to Jimmy Carter, and you collect years worth of names to pretend otherwise.
Just about every good name in the GOP right now, came from recent conservative efforts and victories, not the GOPe branch of losers.
To quote John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Show us the numbers for that.
Akin had a great Fiscal Conservative record. The squishy moderates in the GOP helped kill his campaign by depriving it of money.
Social Conservatives need to wise up and learn how to out wit these leftwing reporters who ask about abortion. One doest have to go into detail just declare that one is pro-life
And when precepts of one conflicts with precepts of the other how is the conflict resolved?
Romney got nominated for one reason only.....the conservatives had no unity. Romney did not break 30% until his nomination became inevitable. If either Ricky or Newty dropped out, Romney loses the nomination.
Conservative is a NAME progressives gave/give to non progressives..
Conservative = same old, same old...
Progressive = forward thinking..
When non progressives use “conservative” to identify themselves..
The progressives have ALREADY WON..
They lost MEME-War...
Note: Liberals are proud of being forward-thinking EVEN if they aren’t..
Nothing as regressive as american liberal thinking..
Sad to say most all republicans have been pretty much brain washed by liberals..
Republicans are desperate to morph the word “conservative” into ((NOT MEANING))... “same old, same old”.. If they DO.. they are brain washed..
You're the one calling them "safe" ... Mr. "Macaca" Allen was "safe" bet to lose just as he did a few years earlier. Thompson was not going to win in WI, but it's not like that was an easy pick up. The rest are noise to me right now.
There was plenty of reason to believe Akin would lose when he didn't step aside and allow someone else to take his spot. Sad and frightful it may be to say, we're better off with McCaskill than someone so pompous and delusional as Akin. Mourdock was clearly stuck on stupid for not learning from Akin's rape controversy.
The Akin and Mourdock races were easy pickings and thrown away.
Now describes too many modern "conservatives." There's nothing but endless whining and spawning of conspiracy theories all to disclaim any part in a failure whether it's who gets nominated or when of their 'chosen', like Akin, is soundly defeated. In both the McCain and Romney nomination cases, conservatives had four years to produce a 'champion', their alternative to the likely nominee. It didn't happen and in the case of 2012, it was like the keystone cops ... every month there was a new choice people ran to.
Here's the thing, once again there's no GOP incumbent... these nominating elections happen EVERY FOUR YEARS. Start recruiting NOW.
I can tell you now: if Santorum's the next nominee, he will lose and "conservatives" who were so enraptured by him this past cycle will be born again critics and finally see him as he really is.
There are a few significant divisions. The social/fiscal division, even though it gets a lot of attention, isn’t it. One clue is that we talk about it all the time, and one of the easiest ways to know what’s insignificant is to listen to what people babble about the most. Here are the big splits, in my opinion:
1). Traditionalists versus libertarians. Which sounds like social versus fiscal conservatism, but isn’t.
2). Religious versus nonreligious, agnostic, or, less often, atheist.
3). Hawk versus isolationist.
Excuse me. How did the conservatives do in the last couple of elections?
You think conservatives are going to make any headway on the deficit when those same conservatives try to tell a bunch of people how to live that don't want to live that way? Hi, vote for my guy because he wants you to live the way you don't want to live.
Practical reality and the sheer evidence of U.S. social policy direction should tell you it is not working.
Social conservatives should focus on effective means to bring about the kind of social change that is necessary. Trying to do it through legislative policy sure aint working. In fact, it could not be going more quickly in the wrong direction.
What you are advocating is the equivelent of trying to move a wagon uphill by pushing the rope. You aint getting anywhere. Time to start pulling.
Or thought of another way, you don't make wine by yelling down in the bottle, Be Wine!
But all the things you mention are the consequences of adverse economic policy. If the nation coincidentally suddenly declined morally at the same time as these perverse regulations popped up, okay. But you can’t fix that through politics. What you can do is curtail the bad behavior underwritten by the state.
I didn’t say safe as in a 100% sure bet to win, but safe in that the establishment assured us were non-controversial picks. We hear nothing but Akin this and Mourdock that and never about any of the other races with one of those aforementioned “safe” candidates. They all blew their races for one reason or another. This singling out of 2 Tea Party candidates when all those others lost, too, is absurd.
To say Thompson was not going to win in WI early on was silly. The Democrat was a crazy butch lesbian moonbat from Madistan, not exactly a mainstream candidate by any stretch. She had never won statewide. But, again, Thompson was the “safe” candidate to run, somebody whom had won 4 times statewide.
To address Allen, that “macaca” comment was way back in 2006, not a “few years” ago. He was either ahead of or tied Tim Kaine in the polls for quite some time in 2012, yet he failed to win (and this time around, you couldn’t blame “macaca”). A lot of individuals on our side ran bad or bland candidacies that failed to inspire. My entire point here is that a lot of these “safe” candidates that the establishment insisted we run still couldn’t win. So, again, why should we go after Akin & Mourdock with double barrels when so many others failed to deliver winnable seats ? I think it’s an excuse to knock Tea Party candidates when the establishment’s record is much worse (look at their epic fail disastrous Presidential nominees of the past two cycles... Conservatives/Tea Partiers need not apply).
Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. Our problem is big government. Social leftism starts with federal involvement in social issues like the safety net and schools. Can the author truly believe that local school boards and private charity lead to social leftism?
One of the reasons, if not the main reason, the vast majority of citizens are immoral and don’t restrain themselves, if they in fact are, is because of social engineering by the government. You’re not going to solve it without taking away policies which create and support it. Then, when people are on their own, you can have a Great Awakening, or whatever.
I don’t think a person who doesn’t think people would be better on their own—that is, without nanny government—when they must be responsible or die, is actually a conservative. No matter how incapable the people appear at present of achieving anything beyond overriding or starving to death within a couple months.
I think they do, only on a smaller scale.
It is hardly realistic to attempt to sustain moral virtues with a giant government acting against them. The chicken and egg might be a little hard to separate here, but the leftists did not take over because someone on our side didn't run socially conservative. They took over because they are a self-sustaining cabal, and they coopted people like George W Bush into growing the government. (Not to mention Nixon).
I think your partially right. Allen, Thompson, Romney ran bland campaigns thinking this would be a walk. Akin and Murdoch said statements that were so ignorant and misogynistic that they were used to back up the lefts claim of the imaginary “war on woman”.
Santorum was the last remaining credible Conservative in the Presidential race. Was he the best we could run ? By no means. However there is a serious problem EVERY Conservative candidate must face, in that they have to run against the establishment brick wall that doesn’t want anyone but big government liberals to be the nominee.
It’s appalling we have to run against our own f’ing party just to get a GOOD nominee through, which by the time that happens, if even possible, they’ve been completely bankrupted of funds fighting against that left-wing establishment, AND have had their names and character dragged through the mud. All of this BEFORE they face the Democrat and media onslaught for the general. And you wonder why our best and brightest say, “F it, I’m not putting myself or my family through this crap.”
The reason why Santorum was remotely viable was solely because of how horrendous and viscerally unpopular Willard was to the base and wanting to support someone, anyone, who remotely shared their values to go into the general election.
Indeed, it’s not Santorum I’m worried about running again in 2016 (I doubt he would). It’s that the establishment will insist on coronating that Zero bootlicking fat tub of $hit from New Jersey, Christie. You know, “Someone who can win !” Just like how McCain won and how Willard won. Gee whiz, why bother having two parties when the GOP does all the dirty work for the Democrats ?
It’s pretty well demonstrated the party establishment and the Democrats are in bed together. Might as well stop insulting our intelligence and they should declare it publicly, that their sole mission is to stop non-leftist candidates from making it to a general election, and only ringers need apply.
Well, that means everything devolves into leftism. The Salvation Army in my rural area is happy to anyone including illegal immigrants. I’m not sure if that makes them leftist or not.
You certainly don’t understand libertarians. They don’t cast God out of the world, nor declare Anything Goes morally. It’s just that government is not in the business of God, nor creating a law to cover every little scruple. Where government does not tread there your religion and translegal morality step in.
Right now I don't see anyone seriously advocating for the elimination or drastic reduction in government enforced wealth redistribution. Too many people have too much at stake and really are dependent on maintaining the various programs. That means this ends only after it all comes crashing down. My goal is to prepare me and mine for that inevitable result.
There was talk early on of something like a 55 senator advantage in the senate. A couple tea party losses do not account for the current imbalance. A whole lot of candidates, including more than a few establishment picks, failed.
What’s so maddening about Allen is that many of us believed he was on his way to the White House. Going to the Senate turned out to be his biggest mistake (one wonders now if Reagan had gone to the Senate in 1974 at the end of his Governorship as he initially planned would’ve substantially harmed his future races for President — he only dropped out of running because of Watergate and polling showing him trailing Alan Cranston).
This was an unabashed Conservative in the ‘90s who took down the heir apparent Democrat to the VA Governorship when he’d been trailing for a good part of the race. The guy who unapologetically said he wanted to knock their (liberals) soft teeth down their whiny throats. He took out Robb in 2000, but that was to be his last moment of triumph. The Dems knew he was likely going to be the 2008 candidate (much in the same way the GOP thought that of Hillary), so they needed to soften him up in his 2006 reelection. Even they were flabbergasted when their kook anti-Semitic thug nominee managed to knock him off, not only grabbing the Senate in the process, but eliminating a leading Presidential candidate.
I think Allen may have merely viewed his return to the Senate as a consolation prize and ran his campaign on auto pilot, since it was highly unlikely he’d be mounting a serious run for the Presidency again. Viewed through that prism, he ultimately shouldn’t have even run again. It’s sad to see someone once so highly regarded end their career like that.
An 8-seat gain (which is all that was needed to get to 55) was not an unrealistic expectation. After all, many were the Dems carried over in the anti-Bush 6th year backlash of ‘06, some occupying heavily GOP seats. It was simply inexcusable that we not only didn’t make gains, but lost seats.
I don’t know what is the problem with Senate contests. Since after 1980 (when we beat 9 incumbent Dems), we have never been able to defeat more than 2 Senate Dem incumbents in a cycle. Two. The Dems almost do that against our side routinely without breaking a sweat. Not even in 1994, the great vaunted GOP year, did we knock off more than 2 (Harris Wofford in PA by Rick Santorum and Majority Leader-presumptive Jim Sasser by Bill Frist in my state of TN). Had it not been for all the retirements producing open seats that year, we’d have likely failed to win the Senate.
He’s right, but doesn’t really explain why. At least, not in this excerpt.
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.