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.
It isn't my experience, it is the facts on voting. Evangelicals vote almost 80% republican.
The biggest indicator of how groups vote, is the level of their religiosity.
If they are non-religious then the great majority of those will vote democrat, if they are ANTI-religion, then they are the left's version of Evangelicals, a very dependable voting block.
Al, it is certainly true that for people to thrive in limited-government liberty, they must basically subscribe to the Judeo Christian ethic. But here's another EQUALLY CERTAIN TRUTH: The Judeo-Christian ethic REQUIRES limited government in order to thrive.
Will do. Thanks for the heads-up.
Yes it is, who do you think has blocked unionism in America, the social liberal states or the social conservative states?
You really are looking through a pin hole and ignoring reality.
I'm not arguing with you. Their cause was championed by newly "liberated" leftists like Hillary Cloneton and her ilk, who aligned with the Marxism that they, as the first generation of females from the middle and lower classes attend college in large numbers, mistook for intellectual achievement.
You must admit that in so doing, the "feminists" actually liberated males from responsibility, especially by making abortion not just a solution, but a sacrament.
~~~~snip~~~~~
Which is yours -- yes or no?
____________________________________________
Finny, you asked a great deal of questions. Rhetorical quenstions, questions that indicate you don't know the answer yourself, and have added way too much dialogue to muddle through.
My points have been clear and concise. If you still have any questions, then try to restate it in 10 words or less. Thanks.
FINNY — PLEASE STOP SHOUTING. IT IS RUDE.
I don’t know any fiscal conservatives that vote Dem. We vote GOP when they manage to put up a candidates that doesn’t suck, libertarian or “screw you guys” when they don’t. The big problem is these days the GOP seems to be incapable of finding candidates that aren’t a sick joke.
Abortion should be illegal. Period.
The social liberals used the power of government to change the definition of marriage. Social conservatives still see government as a tool to use. It is a tool that will ALWAYS be used against us.
Very well said!
Until you quit hiding what you are trying to say, we can’t understand you.
The facts are that social conservatives are THE small government people and that you are trying to defeat them in the name of social liberalism.
Your “us” is anti-conservative, social liberals promoting a liberal agenda.
I just said abortion should be illegal. Do you think the definition of marriage got changed because we didn’t out law homosexual marriage?
It got changed because social liberal expanded the scope and reach of government and FORCED IT on EVERYONE.
The best way to fight this is to slash the scope and power of government. How can I say it more clearly?
AMEN, and Bump to the Top, Brother FReeper.
We are fighting to slash government, we always do, it is what real/social conservatives do.
Suddenly you are fighting us, to stop fighting the homosexual agenda.
The homosexual agenda is advancing because of your side, not the conservatives.
The federal government allows gays in the military and recognize gay marriages in the military and in federal employment, and in immigration, because of social liberals, not because of conservatives.
Should bakers be punished for baking cakes for homosexual "weddings"?
Where did you get the idea I’m fighting you?
From your posts on this thread, your fight is against conservatives, and for the social liberals.
No.
Well, yeah. Duh! This model served America well for 200 some odd years. Is it too much to ask that we return to what worked? Seeing as how abortion, open homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, sloth, dependence, entitlement thinking, and envy are ONLY empowered in modern America BY government -- you advocate moving AWAY from that model when you advocate that conservatism means using government for social engineering. You don't recognize that you are advocating a move AWAY from what worked. Americans didn't need government to force them to be moral; it took government to force them to be IMMORAL, it took government to force them to accepting abortion with Roe v Wade, it took government to force them to accommodate open homosexuals.
The use of government for social engineering is what the Founders AVOIDED and what liberals/Democrats EMBRACED. You seem to be embracing the same justification -- social engineering for the good of society. The Founders CLEARLY advocated limited government, separation of Church and State, keeping government out of the charity business (welfare, entitlement, sloth, envy), out of the morality business (murder/abortion, let alone prostitution and gambling, were NOT made illegal in the Constitution -- that was left to the states, which some social-engineering-conservatives here therefore MUST take to mean that the Founders were pro-murder, pro-gambling, and pro-prostitution). When government -- a FORCE that Washington warned was a dangerous servant and a fearful master -- presumes to get in the morality business, it THEREFORE presumes to usurp religion. Government is amoral; religion is moral.
That's not to hard to understand now, is it?
Right back at ya. You fail to understand the very things you advocate.
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.