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: “I’m socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.” Or: “If the Republicans weren’t conservative on so many social issues, I would vote Republican.” Or: “It’s too bad the Christian Right dominates the Republican party. I would vote for the Republicans on fiscal issues, but I can’t 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: Let’s 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 shouldn’t.
Here’s why.
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 weren’t socially conservative. They didn’t leave the Democrats before same-sex marriage was an issue, and they won’t leave them if same-sex marriage ceases to be an issue.
Let’s 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 Bible’s God. Fiscal conservatives must come to understand that they need social conservatives, too. They need them philosophically, as I’ve 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.
Of course.
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.
HUH?
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.
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.