[gusty]

The two strands of Conservatism are talking past each other in our latest argument. We come from the two different places. One strand is one that places its priorities on the fiscal and foreign policy issues. It’s history in the GOP can be traced back to opposition to the New Deal back in the 1930’s. This is why my businessman grandfather was a Republican back in those days. For honesty’s sake, I place myself in this strand.
The other strand is the Social Conservatives. They enter the GOP picture around 1980. Prior they were part of the Democrat coalition.They accepted the premise of the New Deal . They were the ones who strongly supported Carter in 1976. Their disappointment with Carter and the social turmoil of the 60’s and 70’s pushed them into the GOP. However, social issues are center stage. They are not so much against big government in its’ organization, but in the Liberal’s use of it. I may be bold in stating that if Obamacare was instituted without abortion being included, their opposition to it would end.
The Social Conservatives see the Free Market Conservatives as money grubbing heathens. While the Free Market Conservatives see the Social Conservatives as religious extremist. This is a fact on how we see each other.
A good test would be who would you vote for in this hypothetical situation.

Candidate A - 100% social conservative on social issues , but left wing on economics.

Candidate B - Moderate to slightly liberal on the social issues, and 100% free market pro-business on the fiscal ones.

I personally would vote for Candidate B, how but others. Would be interesting to read the responses.

[LuvFreeRepublic]

Candidate B for me. If we no longer have a free society because BIG government has taken over, I doubt we will have any say in social issues. Obviously with Obama or Romney, fiscal conservatives will be screwed and so will social conservatives. Insanity has prevailed.

[Longbow1969]

That is a very good explanation of where we stand. Of course a lot of Republicans have morphed into a mix of social and fiscal conservatism. Groups that organize together for electoral purposes will, over time, adopt some of each others policy positions.

There are, to use your example, many Republican Candidate B’s who will agree to the pro-life position in order to keep the coalition together, but that don’t personally care about it one way or the other. And of course there equally numerous Republican Candidate A’s who would personally have no problem using government to do things like ban porn, but understand such positions aren’t viable within a broad coalition that can win elections.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Candidate A - 100% social conservative on social issues , but left wing on economics.

Please name such a candidate in the real world.

[GeronL]

I am social and fiscal conservative. I bet a lot of people are. You can’t believe in social liberalism like sharing the wealth and cradle to grave welfare while being a fiscal conservative.

.....

I would not vote for either of your hypothetical candidates. Of course neither will actually exist.

[GenXteacher]

Under your analysis, I have no dog in the fight either way. I am looking for a candidate who would, if the opportunity came:

Get rid of most of the Federal Government’s useless departments and agencies, notably the DOE, HUD, BATFE, and some others;

Get rid of government handouts such as WIC, for example;

Remove Obamacare immediately;

Not spend more money than was brought in;

Propose a flat 8% income tax (God doesn’t ask for more than 10%; why should the government?)if there has to be such a thing- a protective tariff such as was in place prior to the Wilson administration would be even better still;

Reinstate the military’s ban on homosexuals even serving, as it was prior to Clinton.

Encourage and support the passage of a Federal marriage amendment because a society that wishes to survive cannot do so in a state of anarchy, either political or social.

Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism need not be incompatible.

[muawiyah]

I'd vote against both of them for being soft on Communism.

That's always a good enough reason.

[caww]

..."Social Conservatives. They enter the GOP picture around 1980..... Prior they were part of the Democrat coalition.

They accepted the premise of the New Deal . They were the ones who strongly supported Carter in 1976. Their disappointment with Carter and the social turmoil of the 60’s and 70’s pushed them into the GOP.

However, social issues are center stage. They are not so much against big government in its’ organization, but in the Liberal’s use of it.

Why didn't they just go with the Libertarian Party? or Independents? Is their some unknown need to be part of a large collective group?