Skip to comments.A Note to ‘Fiscal Conservatives’: If you want smaller gov't, the religious right is your ally
Posted on 03/04/2014 8:10:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If there were as many fiscal conservatives as there are people who claim to be, it is hard to see how Republicans would lose as many elections as they do.
One frequently hears this political self-identification: Im socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. Or: If the Republicans werent conservative on so many social issues, I would vote Republican. Or: Its too bad the Christian Right dominates the Republican party. I would vote for the Republicans on fiscal issues, but I cant stand the religious Right.
The same sentiment holds among many inside the Republican party. Most secular conservatives and the libertarian wing of the party agree: Lets jettison all this social stuff (most prominently opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, and this unnecessary commitment to religion) and just stand for small government and personal liberty.
To many people these positions sound reasonable, even persuasive. They shouldnt.
It is hard to believe that people who call themselves fiscal conservatives and vote for Democrats would suddenly abandon the Democratic party if only the Republican party embraced same-sex marriage and abortion.
The Left and its political party will always create social issues and tout them in divisive terms that make Republicans and conservatives look reactionary. Today it is same-sex marriage, the next day it is the Republican war on women, and soon it will be ending the objective male-female designation of Americans (including at birth, because children should have the right to determine their gender and not have their parents and their genitalia determine it). Or it will be animal rights, race-based affirmative action, or an environmentalist issue. Concerning the latter, how many fiscal conservatives who vote for Democrats are prepared to abandon the party on the climate change issue? I suspect very few.
Fiscally conservative Democrats are thus fooling themselves and others when they announce that they would abandon the Democratic party if only the Republicans werent socially conservative. They didnt leave the Democrats before same-sex marriage was an issue, and they wont leave them if same-sex marriage ceases to be an issue.
Lets turn now to God and religion, the most obvious arena of social conservatism. Among the secular conservatives, libertarians, and secular-fiscal conservatives who vote Democratic, there are many who claim they would vote for Republicans if the party were not home to so many social conservatives who are so adamant about God and religion.
This group, too, is fooling itself. Anyone who thinks that you can have smaller government the central goal for libertarians and other fiscal conservatives outside the framework of Judeo-Christian religions and their God-based values fails to understand both the Founders and human nature.
The entire American experiment in smaller government and even in secular government was based on the presumption that Americans individually would be actively religious. Unlike Europeans of the Enlightenment era and unlike the Left today the Founders understood that people are not basically good. That is a defining belief of Judaism as well as of Christianity. Therefore, to be good, the great majority of people need moral religion and belief in accountability to a morally judging God. In other words, you will have either the big God of Judaism and Christianity or the big state of the Left.
Social conservatives know that they need fiscal conservatives. They know that the bigger the state, the smaller the God. They know that proponents of the ever-larger state want their own gods, such as Mother Earth, to replace the Bibles God. Fiscal conservatives must come to understand that they need social conservatives, too. They need them philosophically, as Ive suggested, and they need them politically. There will never be enough Americans who are fiscally but not socially conservative to win a national election. Sorry.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist.
The last time this happened republicans won the white house for 12 years.
“I’m conservative, but...”= seminar poster
What force empowers abortion and homosexual marriage? Why was it that before Roe v Wade, TWO THIRDS of the states outlawed abortion? Why is it that homosexuals have to go to court in order to have what they consider their "rights" respected?
Dennis Prager, government IS A FORCE. It isn't a philosophy, it isn't an intangible bundle of wishes, it isn't a theory, it isn't "just on paper." Government is a force.
Without the FORCE of government behind them, the homosexual AND abortion agendas would be DEAD IN THE WATER. Government, socially "involved" government, is the FORCE that has nourished and enabled the abortion and homosexual lobbies to override the majority of Americans who are obviously opposed to both; if they weren't opposed to abortion and the gay agenda, then government wouldn't need to step in and force Americans to accept abortion and homosexuality.
The best way to achieve a MORAL society, the best way to see America become MORE moral, more in keeping with the Judeo-Christian ethic, is to REDUCE government. Social conservatives fail to understand that, and that is Christian conservatives like me see them as righteous statists with Christian morality; they are ONLY "conservatives" if the word "conservative" is code for "Judeo-Christian morality." To make "conservative" code for "Judeo-Christian morality" is stupid and self-defeating.
Lack of government "prohibiting" gay marriage (an oxymoron, and outlawing gay marriage is like outlawing unicorns) and lack of government preventing abortion, is not the problem, Dennis!! Before government stepped in, Americans, who are on balance moral and righteous, REJECTED BOTH all on their own. It was ONLY when government stepped in to force the majority to surrender to both the gay and abortion lobbies, that this problem happened.
Reduce government, reduce the problem. Morality in American would THRIVE if the FORCE of government was neutered and reduced to the bare essentials FORMED ON THE JUDEO CHRISTIAN ETHIC as the Founders did at the start.
The problem is the fiscal liberals and social conservatives like Huckabee give social conservatives a bad name.
Note to the religious right - fiscal conservatives are your allies.
There is no religious right, nor middle, nor left.
What there was ... was the Republican Party brass who established a gravitational point in order to raise votes.
Yet with those votes, came the voters and their expression.
Now *that,* the RNC/Republican Party Hair Club for Men could not tolerate. In meetings, some Bible-thumpers were obstinate. The RP brass were indignant; how dare anybody challenge the RINO! Soon after, came a rise of conservative grass roots rebellion among *immigrants* particularly in Florida, who objected to the Clinton/Reno “progressives” sending young Elian back to Cuba.
Since then, the Money Talks RINO have been trying to distance themselves from grass roots conservatives -and- get as close to being Progressives with Money But for Lower Taxes for Themselves.
Unfortunately, that idea went to the wayside at the turn of the century when socialists like Wilson entered the scene. We have been sliding into the leftist big state abyss ever since.
Note to the religious right - fiscal conservatives are your allies.
Did you read the article? Fiscal conservatives WHO ARE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES are our allies.
Libertarians; small goverment idealists; fiscal only; RINO’s; etc.... can all go take a hike unless they are socially conservative.
Can one really be a fiscal conservative and reject social and moral values? I'm not so sure.
Moral Absolutes Ping!
Freepmail Responsibility2nd or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list. FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search [ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Just a note. I don’t expect the stupid wing of social conservatives to agree.
Thank you kindly.
Resp2nd, the word "conserve" has two primary definitions.
One is to "protect from harm or decay." That is what "conserving" is under that definition.
The other is "to use something sparingly." That is what "conserving" is under that definition.
So as a self-described conservative, Responsibility2nd, WHICH kind of "conservative" are you? Are you one who seeks to use government to "protect" American culture "from harm and decay"?
OR are you the kind of "conservative" who seeks to "use [government] sparingly"?
Has Free Republic really been reduced to a level where social conservative values are openly attacked?
What a shame.
Silly post, it didn’t say anything, it was a weird way of just telling people to let abortion and gay marriage be, don’t vote to stop what is happening.
can all go take a hike unless they are socially conservative.
Social liberals already vote for the left, while social conservatives vote for small government and fiscal conservatism.
That is the reality of how the vote breaks down with Southern Baptists voting 80% conservative, while atheists vote 80% left.
The social liberals want to create a lie that is the opposite of the reality.
Since social liberalism makes it impossible for fiscal conservatism to exist, then fiscal conservatives have to fight social liberalism, or else they are destroying fiscal conservatism.
A big tent works for me. That said...Can we give the Losertarians to the green party?
OR are you the kind of "conservative" who seeks to "use [government] sparingly"?
The first definition. I'm a traditional socon. Let me give you a real-life example on how libertarians have screwed over all aspects of conservatism. They rant on and on about how marriage has no place in government. As a result; they are actually damaging the role marriage played in making America great for some 200 years and are in fact allies with the queer marriage leftists. This further erodes the traditional family which addes to illegitimacy, welfare increases and higher taxes. Libertarians then claim they are fiscally conservative by hiding under their small government mantra? They are fools who delude themselves.
All right. You are a social liberal. Your opposition to SoCons being firmly established, now perhaps you can entertain us with some of your favorite socially liberal positions.
Are you for queer marriages? Abortion? How about queers in the military? Or perhaps you’re like many other libs here at FR who want the government out of upholding marriage?
Lurkers, newbies, fellow conservatives, please understand that false-witess-bearing "conservatives" such as ansel12 are a minority.
I'm penning this post in response to ansel12, though I've adopted the habit of skipping his posts if I'm quick enough to see the author, because in the past, I've read too many posts from fellow conservatives who have been soured on Free Republic because of willfully self-deceived self-appointed moral arbiters like Ansel12 (a member of FR's small but vocal contingent of Church Lady Moralists) libel them as being "pro abortion and pro homosexual" because they believe in limited government, whereas ansell apparently believes in FORCE OF GOVERNMENT to make the children ... er, Americans, behave themselves.
Which is of course what pro abortion and pro homosexual Democrats believe as well, except THEY think the children ... er, Americans, aren't behaving morally when they reject abortion in their state (as two thirds did before Roe v Wade) and when they tell open homosexuals to take a hike. Ansell12/Church Lady anti-small-l-libertarian contingent call for the same statist government nanny "for our own good."
Ansel12 has to bear false witness (equating limited government with "not wanting to stop" two forms of moral malaise that ONLY exist because of government, hence voting to "stop" it is inane) in order to promote the validity of that "conservative" opinion.
He represents a SMALL MINORITY of Free Repubic, but he and his fellow Church Ladies are spiteful, they lie, and they are nasty and ugly. Good, moral, Christian conservatives, please remain on FR but ignore Ansel12 & the Church Lady Contingent's shrill, ugly, libelous hysterics.
You are a social liberal.
Similarly, social conservatives who are not also fiscally conservative should also be told to take a hike.
Case in point: let's say there is legislation up for consideration which would greatly reduce lifetime eligibility for welfare benefits, and act as an incentive for women to stay in school and go into the workforce instead of going on welfare. Long-term, it would reduce poverty and reduce the deficit. But short-term, it's likely to increase the number of abortions. Would you support or oppose the measure?
Finny, you have to get yourself under control, and try to not become a troll, or stalker.
Try to stay focused on thread topics, and do not carry whatever personal grudges you have from thread to thread, especially to this extent.
You are ranting, if you want to defend your positions on abortion and gay marriage, then do it, but try to make sense so that we can challenge, or respond to them, in defense of conservatism.
| No that is a lie.
You are a social liberal.
I thought you would deny that. Look pal. You attacked social conservaties (stupid wing). So, if you are not a SoCon or a libertarian (social liberal), then what are you? Besides confused and politically ignorant?
Another question, and easy yes-or-no one:
Would you support laws that would persecute:
-- two homosexuals for having a private, pretend marriage ceremony in a private hall
-- the owner of the hall for hosting the pretend ceremony
-- the bakery owner who baked the "wedding" cake for the pretend ceremony
-- the private business owner who decided to extend his company's perks to the sham "married couple" because the employer liked and valued the individual employee
As it stands now, with NEW government that wasn't around even 15 years ago, there are laws that PERSECUTE the opposite of all those things. There are laws now, which didn't exist two decades ago, that PERSECUTE the owner of the hall, the baker of the cake, and the private employer for REFUSING to serve homosexuals.
I'm for getting rid of the laws that exist now, and I believe absolutely that if/when we did, homosexual "marriage" and abortion would be hounded underground and America would become more moral. However, when I and other limited government conservatives (as opposed to pro-government conservatives such as yourself) state that on FR, guys like ansel12 bear false witness and launch ugly, vicious accusations that I am somehow "pro abortion and promoting abortion."
How about you? Are you for laws that punish free Americans for doing things they're forced to do now in the name of homosexual "rights"?
That isn't the problem we are facing. The GOP doesn't have a problem of the 80% conservative Evangelicals and tea partiers moving the party left, it does have a problem with the rinos and libertarians who are trying to move the GOP to the left and into irrelevancy as the democrat party with slightly better tax policies.
The conservative Religious stay home for religious reasons over their fiscal reasons IMO at times.
We are in a current political battle to end abortion and gay marriage, we don’t need someone telling conservatives to lay back and enjoy it.
We need to strengthen the pro-life and pro-marriage fight, not end it.
Wow. Situation Ethics. Haven’t played that game in years and years.
And I’m not gonna play it today. Sorry.
Now. If you wanna discuss real life what-ifs that actually benefited America; we could talk about re-visiting DOMA and Healthy Marriage Initiatives. Or dozens of other proposed conservative laws that would decrease abortion, welfare, crime and so on.
Contrary to what FR’s liberal agitators screech on and on about; passing more pro-family laws won’t destroy the Constitution and ARE NOT as bad or worse as liberal laws to force Christians to bake a cake for some homo’s.
What are you talking about? social liberals vote democrat, but social conservatives have high turnout and are the strongest conservative vote.
Can you defend your abortion/gay marriage arguments, or are you just insanely fixated on me?
Your posts are getting more creepy, even hysterical.
One clear FR rule is do not drag in disputes from other threads. Please don’t here.
Not the entire wing. Just the minority that see fiscal conservatives as the enemy.
I grew up in a country where sodomy was illegal. All 50 states had anti-sodomy laws. But the libertarians with their small government agenda believing what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is no ones business infiltrated Conservatism. It began with no-fault divorces, then Roe v Wade, then same sex rights that now trump traditional moral values.
You listed a very scary scenario here. Its truly tragic what America has come to. But even worse is the libertarians sneering at us SoCons for being "nanny-staters"; yet they themselves are to blame.
Many of the religious are very liberal and you won’t get that vote.
Among the conservative religious, they do vote conservative which is great. But, if they feel there is something unethical about a candidate in their preferred party they will sit out an election sometimes in great numbers.
Going after SoCon goals without FIRST defunding the Dems base of power, means we will ultimately lose.
The only effective tool the social liberals have is big intrusive, overbearing government. If you attack their only tool you stymy their agenda. It also has the advantage that a clear majority of Americans see big, intrusive, overbearing government is a problem and are on board for attacking the problem.
To those people who vote Democrat because they claim to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative, it appears you value immorality, aka social liberalism, far, far more than you value fiscal conservatism. In other words, I agree with Dennis Prager. I very highly doubt you would ever jettison the Democrat Party if Republicans surrendered the so-called social issues.
Dennis Prager is also right that small government absolutely requires Judeo-Christian morality. The two go hand in hand, because immoral people inevitably turn to government to help mitigate the results of immorality. Find yourself at 24 with two children from different (and absent) fathers and a minimum wage or no job? You’re likely going to vote for help from Uncle Sam.
An immoral person might not vote for more government of course, but it’s the lack of moral principles like self restraint that typically get people in a bind in the first place. Plus it doesn’t even matter if there are a few holdouts. What matters is numbers, and small numbers of libertarian libertines will be quickly outnumbered and out voted by people looking for government security.
Finally, social liberals tend to have an irrational fear of religion, especially Christianity. I’m a Christian, and I don’t know of anyone who wants a theocracy. That doesn’t mean there might not be a few left who would love to make things like porn and booze illegal, but let’s be real here. Those few outliers can’t muster voting majorities anywhere.
Christians might talk about their faith, but they’re not going to force you to worship Jesus (Muslims might be a different matter of course). What I’m saying is social liberals who claim to be fiscally conservative really need to weigh the relative risks. Which is more likely to occur, a Christian theocracy or a Democrat controlled, big spending, all intrusive government?
Amen to that. There is no worse cancer in our system than sexual irresponsibility.
That is incredibly ignorant and reveals that even after your time here you have refused to learn how the actual vote breaks down.
Religious Christians are massively, overwhelmingly conservative, there is no group that votes more conservative than their 77 and 80% conservative vote.
The anti-religious, the atheists, are massively, overwhelmingly liberal.
To add to your education, almost all, if not all candidates who are truly conservative, are "religious", any conservative candidate will not win many votes of the social liberals, even the republican social liberals, and there are very few anti-God republicans, too few to measure, since they are naturally liberal.
He answered: The first definition. I'm a traditional socon.
In other words, to you, being "conservative" means using government to protect American society from harm and decay. If you're like me, you regard anti-Christian morality such as abortion, open homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, sloth, dependence, entitlement thinking, and envy, as social evils that harm and decay American society.
"Conservative" to you MUST BE code for "believes in the Judeo-Christian ethic." I say this with absolute certainty because DEMOCRATS and SOCIALISTS also belive in "using government to protect American culture from harm or decay," it's just that they think it harms society to reject open homosexuality; they think that not making abortion abundantly available and cheap would contribute to the decay of American culture. They are as convinced of the moral "righteousness" of their use of government, as you are of yours.
Clearly, they also are "conservative" if you define "conservative" as "to protect from harm or decay." Therefore, the reality is that your definition of "conservative" necessarily entails that "conservative" also be a code word for "holding Judeo-Christian values."
It's pretty obvious to me that the Founding Fathers were the other definition of "conservative" -- the definition of using something sparingly. As Washington supposedly said, government is a FORCE that is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. BETTER TO USE IT SPARINGLY than to advocate for more but different government.
That is the role of conservatives, to fight intrusive, overbearing government, it is the role of the religious and social conservative.
Social liberals come at fighting FOR intrusive, overbearing government from two angles, as the democrat party, and as social liberals/libertarians within the republican party.
Expanding on what I said in #42, measures which just piss off the other side, without reducing their ability to oppose you, are a poor idea and a sure-fire way to lose over the long term.
How do the Dems win elections? They have money to toss around for "get out the vote" efforts, to pay for lawyers to suppress any laws (like Voter ID) which might hamper their voter fraud initiatives, and to pay for voter polls, research, and effective ad campaigns.
Where does the money come from? People who financially benefit from the Dems being in power, and will pay money to keep things rolling. Union money, trial lawyer money, money from "non profits", etc.
In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker, by fighting to pass Right to Work, and thus gutting the financial resources of the unions, has done considerable damage to the Democrats there, and also in other states (since the Dems will now need to send money to Wisconsin from elsewhere to win there). Same deal with Michigan gov Rick Snyder and MI RTW, plus putting appointing a bankruptcy master over Detroit.
THAT is what I'm talking about.
The difference is a matter of emphasis. I just think the more effective path is to demonize big government, not fellow citizens whose support you need in a Republic like ours.