Skip to comments.A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism
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 ...
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.
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.
Religious freedom is under attack in this country. If we don’t defend the freedom of belief, we lose it all.
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.
how could social conservatism lose when it wasn’t even present in this last election?
Why is it a stupid article?
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
Religious freedom is under attack in this country. If we dont 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.
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.
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?
RG would have been way worse than McCain. He was a triple loser, Guns, God and gays. Sorry, not now, not never.
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.
It makes a lot of extrapolations in all the wrong way anyone with half a brain could figure that out. For goodness sakes.
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.
That’s the dumbest extrapolation yet.
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.
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.
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.
David Duke is out as well. Embrace evil (abortion, sexual nihilism, socialism, etc) and you are not part of anything I will associate with.
Thanks for the ping!
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.
If any of your fellow citizens actually believed in individual liberty, this would not be an issue.
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.
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.
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.
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.