Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism
The American Thinker ^ | 11/23/08 | Randall Hoven

Posted on 11/22/2008 11:21:42 PM PST by Dawnsblood

Social conservatism is taking a beating lately. Not only did it lose in the recent elections, it is being blamed for the Republican losses. If only the religious right would get off the Republican party's back, the GOP could win like it is supposed to again. I beg to differ.

I'm anything but a social conservative. In nine presidential elections, I voted Libertarian in six. I am a hard core "limited government" conservative/libertarian; I want government out of my pocket-book and out of my bedroom. Concerning my religion, it's none of your business, but I'm somewhere in the lapsed-Catholic-deist-agnostic-atheist spectrum; let's just call it agnostic.

Having said all that, I have no problem with "social conservatives" or the "religious right" and their supposed influence on the Republican party. I base this not on the Bible or historical authority, but on the love of liberty and the evidence of my own eyes.

Who are the true liberty killers?

The most obvious point to me is that it is the do-gooding liberals who are telling us all what we can and can't do. The religious right usually just wants to be left alone, either to home school, pray in public or not get their children vaccinated with who-knows-what. Inasmuch as the "religious right" wants some things outlawed, they have failed miserably for at least the last 50 years. Abortion, sodomy, and pornography are now all Constitutional rights. However, praying in public school is outlawed, based on that same Constitution.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservative; freedom; liberal; libertarian

1 posted on 11/22/2008 11:21:42 PM PST by Dawnsblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood

Stupid article. It’s sad to think that social conservatives should need any defending.

By the way Gay marriage ban passed in every state that offered the choice, but the wall street shcills failed horribly.


2 posted on 11/22/2008 11:24:59 PM PST by Tempest (Obama is not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood

Abortion, sodomy, and pornography are now all Constitutional rights.

and so is the New Deal and any new socialism Obama comes up with. Well, none of them are, actually, but the SC, prez and legislative branch won’t do anything about it.


3 posted on 11/22/2008 11:27:59 PM PST by ari-freedom (So this is how Liberty dies... with thunderous applause)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood

Religious freedom is under attack in this country. If we don’t defend the freedom of belief, we lose it all.


4 posted on 11/22/2008 11:28:12 PM PST by GVnana ("I once dressed as Tina Fey for Halloween." - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood

He comes close to capturing my sentament: I was (maybe..someday) write an article which linked Constitutionalism as the glue which makes Libertarianism=Tradtional values get along.

Although I wish this author would come to know Christ, it’s at least awesome he’s open.


5 posted on 11/22/2008 11:45:09 PM PST by JSDude1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood

how could social conservatism lose when it wasn’t even present in this last election?


6 posted on 11/22/2008 11:47:14 PM PST by pjluke (thank you Mr. Kalashnikov!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Tempest
Stupid article.

Why is it a stupid article?

8 posted on 11/23/2008 12:07:01 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood

Preach on, sister!

I’d like to add, and this is a very important point: “social conservatives” are what won the GOP the White House in 2000 and 2004. People fed up with the laissez faire sexuality and pro-abortion policies of the Clinton administration went for Bush, and in 2004 had it not been for gay marriage bans in so many key states on the ballot, they could easily have lost that one.

So what happened in 2006 and 2008? In each case the GOP fought the last election, in 2006 and 2008 it ran on a platform of national security. “Values” was not any part of it. It took Sarah Palin to single-handedly raise abortion as an issue, and had she gotten a little back up it might have worked! The media wasn’t reporting on Obama’s radical pro-abortion stance, and one single veep candidate ain’t going to get the message across herself.

Find a single instance of “social conservatism” making the GOP lose. Heck, even in California the gay marriage ban passed.

This is pure scapegoating with no evidence to back it up. Why should I even respect their argument when it is simply rhetoric with no facts?

Also, the only libertarian position on abortion is to be against it. Libertarianism is all about protecting rights and freedom and personal sovereignty. That’s hard to do when you allow the most vulnerable members of society to be murdered in the womb. Life is the FIRST right.


9 posted on 11/23/2008 12:08:47 AM PST by LifeComesFirst (Until the unborn are free, nobody is free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood
I thought to be conservative means first to accept responsibility for ones own actions. This would include both social and fiscal behaviors.

There is nothing fiscally conservative about social liberalism.... When people play someone has to PAY, and most usually the liberal method is to pass on the cost of playing around to everyone. Just look at all the ‘good’ Samaritan legislation past over the past 70 years and are we any better for it? NO!!!

10 posted on 11/23/2008 12:42:25 AM PST by Just mythoughts (Isa.3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood

Social conservatives are the only reason McCain did so well. 26% of the electorate (up from 24% in 2004) were evangelicals and voted for McCain with Bush-level numbers.

McCain screwed the pooch with the fiscal conservatives.


11 posted on 11/23/2008 1:13:06 AM PST by DiogenesLaertius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
It’s sad to think that social conservatives should need any defending.

I think you need defending.

I don't know if you've noticed, but you're getting your asses kicked everywhere you're involved in competitive elections, with the result that a large and somewhat unrepresentative leftist majority has been installed at Washington.

12 posted on 11/23/2008 3:53:14 AM PST by Jim Noble (I have read a fiery gospel, writ in burnished rows of steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

Religious freedom is under attack in this country. If we don’t defend the freedom of belief, we lose it all.

Christians are the only ones under attack, these morons in government can’t do enough for the muslims and thier religious rights.


13 posted on 11/23/2008 5:38:35 AM PST by ronnie raygun ( When CHANGE comes let me know, I'll put my tin foil hat on and sit in front of myTV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood; All

As I recall, the ‘values voter’ was very instrumental in getting McCain through the back door of the primaries. The values voters stuck with Huckabee, which siphoned votes from much more general appealing candidates to the other wings of the GOP faction. My first choice would have been Thompson. My next one, in Thompson’s absence, would have been Giuliani. And Giuliani was outright rejected by SoCons because of two key issues (he would not have pushed a pro-life agenda and did not have a tough enough stance on homosexuality [some also content he would have been a gun-grabber because of his policies he pushed for in NYC while a mayor]). However, Giuliani would have been a superior (in my opinion) candidate to McCain, Huckabee, or Romney.


14 posted on 11/23/2008 7:58:54 AM PST by LowCountryJoe (Do class-warfare and disdain of laissez-faire have their places in today's GOP?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Social conservatism is taking a beating lately. Not only did it lose in the recent elections...

One reason why this is a stupid article is that it starts off with a complete boner. How can this author overlook the victory of pro-marriage Prop. 8 in California?

15 posted on 11/23/2008 8:10:48 AM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LowCountryJoe

RG would have been way worse than McCain. He was a triple loser, Guns, God and gays. Sorry, not now, not never.


16 posted on 11/23/2008 8:13:33 AM PST by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun
Christians are the only ones under attack, these morons in government can’t do enough for the muslims and thier religious rights.

Yes. But perhaps you need to spend a little more time around those Godless liberals and then you'd realize they only defend muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. to the extent those groups are an underprivleged class to Christians. At the bottom of their protestations lies a hatred of religion. Religion defeats their hegemony over your thoughts.

17 posted on 11/23/2008 8:14:07 AM PST by GVnana ("I once dressed as Tina Fey for Halloween." - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It makes a lot of extrapolations in all the wrong way anyone with half a brain could figure that out. For goodness sakes.


18 posted on 11/23/2008 9:42:21 AM PST by Tempest (Obama is not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Prop 8.

Idiot.


19 posted on 11/23/2008 9:43:38 AM PST by Tempest (Obama is not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
Prop 8. Idiot.

Prop 8 proves my point.

Yes, it's possible to turn back the most obvious perversities at the ballot box, even in blue states.

But you don't seem to be able to ELECT officials, nor can you PREVENT the election of pro-pervert officials who are doing enormous damage.

20 posted on 11/23/2008 9:50:06 AM PST by Jim Noble (I have read a fiery gospel, writ in burnished rows of steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

That’s the dumbest extrapolation yet.


21 posted on 11/23/2008 10:08:27 AM PST by Tempest (Obama is not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
It makes a lot of extrapolations in all the wrong way anyone with half a brain could figure that out. For goodness sakes.

So you prefer to engage in ad hominems instead of giving examples of why it is a stupid article? There's a great deal of talking about leaving the GOP. Guess what? Self identified conservatives are only about a third of the electorate in the last two national elections. Small 'l' libertarians are estimated at ten to fifteen percent of the electorate. We need each other if we want to stop the marxists.

22 posted on 11/23/2008 10:24:25 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
One reason why this is a stupid article is that it starts off with a complete boner. How can this author overlook the victory of pro-marriage Prop. 8 in California?

By a whopping 52 - 48, it wasn't exactly a landslide. Meanwhile how many OpEds are saying the GOP needs to ignore the social conservatives and become more moderate? There's a lot of stupid commentary going around. I didn't think this article was one of them.

23 posted on 11/23/2008 11:19:43 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

ping


24 posted on 11/23/2008 11:23:36 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: narses

So, the article wasn’t entirely correct: social conservatives just cannot accept someone that is tolerant of homosexuals and who will not promote a pro-faith agenda at the federal level. So much for inclusiveness of the limited government conservatives.


25 posted on 11/23/2008 12:09:26 PM PST by LowCountryJoe (Do class-warfare and disdain of laissez-faire have their places in today's GOP?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LowCountryJoe

David Duke is out as well. Embrace evil (abortion, sexual nihilism, socialism, etc) and you are not part of anything I will associate with.


26 posted on 11/23/2008 12:37:44 PM PST by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
27 posted on 11/23/2008 3:06:07 PM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


28 posted on 11/23/2008 3:06:37 PM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood
Thought this was an interesting point:

Using the National Journal's ratings of Senators in 2007 , the correlation coefficient between "economic" scores and "social" scores is 90%. That means they almost always go together; financial conservatives are social conservatives and vice versa. Every Senator scoring above 60 in economic issues, scored above 50 in social ones. Every Senator scoring below 40 in economic issues, scored below 50 in social ones. If there is such an animal as a "financial conservative, social liberal", it does not exist in the US Senate.

29 posted on 11/23/2008 3:18:52 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVnana
Religious freedom is under attack in this country. If we don’t defend the freedom of belief, we lose it all.

If any of your fellow citizens actually believed in individual liberty, this would not be an issue.

30 posted on 11/23/2008 5:36:21 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

I’ll never understand how religious socialists end up as the “religious right”. They more properly belong on the left-wing side, some further left than others.

Elitism is elitism, it matters little who the rulers are other than a subjective opinion on the comfort of the manacles.

And yes, so-called “social conservatives” cost the GOP a lot of votes. Many more people fear religious elitism over political elitism than vice versa, and that’s how they vote.


31 posted on 11/24/2008 7:10:08 AM PST by fnord (If gun owners, pot smokers, and poker players start a political party, they'd never lose an election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood
Excellent article.

Thanks for posting.

Next we need an article setting straight the soCons who think they can ditch the econoCons.

All three legs of the conservative stool are necessary to win elections.

32 posted on 11/24/2008 11:41:48 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood

The recent eharmony lawsuit is strong evidence that libertarians and social conservatives have significant common interests. I don’t even have to give two sides-— neither would want a private business to be forced to accommodate homosexuality if it violates the owner’s conscience.


33 posted on 11/24/2008 11:59:00 AM PST by murdoog ("I am involved with politics so that politics is not involved with me"-Dan Flynn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...
Social conservatism is taking a beating lately.
Huh. Amazing remark, considering that California -- one of the most flat on the floor liberal havens on the planet, with perhaps a fifth of its population made up of illegal immigrants -- just decisively rejected gay marriage at the ballot box. Thanks neverdem.
34 posted on 11/24/2008 2:46:12 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile finally updated Saturday, October 11, 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

bttt


35 posted on 11/24/2008 6:19:19 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson