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.