Economic Conservatives and Traditional Conservatives Are – or Should Be – ...

Townhall. com ^ | September 28, 2012 | Daniel J. Mitchell

[PapaBear3625]

True social conservatives who are liberal, barely exist, your category 3 just isn't a real category, it is something that you just made up.

Your own graphic calls you wrong.

About 18% of "weekly attending white evangelicals" are category 3. About 42% of weekly attending white protestants are category 3. About 39% of weekly attending Catholics are category 3.

And you have to either declare that there are a negligible number of black social conservatives, or concede that what black social conservatives there are, are category 3.

I'm not saying that category 3's are dominant, I'm saying they exist, and in significant numbers. You probably don't know many, but that is more likely due to your personality.

[ansel12]

Rather than you keep making things up, show me where true, social conservatives are voting for welfare.

You cannot just say that someone who says that he believes in God, or is a Catholic or Protestant, is a social conservative, they aren’t, that is where rino republicans come from, and it is the point of this discussion.

Blacks are not social conservatives, almost 70% of them are pro-abortion.

It is you anti-social conservatives, and money only types that make up both the democrat left wing, and the left wing of the GOP, the rinos.

You have no idea why 18% of white Evangelicals voted for Obama, zero, and it is baffling why you would even want to attack the most right wing voters in America, the social conservatives.

Compare them to these voters.

Obama easily won the $200,000 income and above, by a 52 to 46 margin!

Obama lost the $50,000-$75,000 income group by a single point!

Obama won the $75,000 to $100,000 income group by a solid 51 to 48 margin.

Yet you want to denigrate the people who vote 70 and 80% conservatives? Where is your libertarian, lefty head at?

[ansel12]

I consider myself a "small-l libertarian". As such, I am against increases in government spending, AND ALSO against increases in government regulation of behaviors that do not involve violence or fraud against others, and am in favor of shrinking government.

In other words a liberal that likes conservative economics.

We need to call them (liberaltarians) social liberal republicans, because their defining trait is eliminating at least one leg of conservatism, that means they are not real conservatives. We all know that social liberal republican means that he still likes conservative positions on his money issues, he just isn’t a naturally conservative person.

[PapaBear3625]

I'll repeat what I said earlier in the thread:

Cool. My point is, one should be considered really conservative to the degree that he is socially conservative AND fiscally conservative AND desirous of minimizing governmental power over individuals.

It's a three-legged stool.

And then I'll repeat my question you keep refusing to give an answer to:

Let's say Joe is against gay marriage, against drug use, against sex outside marriage. Joe is also in favor of continuing governmental welfare programs for the poor, considering it a Christian duty.

Do you consider Joe to be a conservative? Yes or no.

[ansel12]

Cool. My point is, one should be considered really conservative to the degree that he is socially conservative AND fiscally conservative AND desirous of minimizing governmental power over individuals. It's a three-legged stool.

If that is true, then we agree, it sure seems to contradict your posts though, and sure excludes libertarians, which is what I said in my first post, and that you disagreed with.

Now you seem to agree that libertarians are liberals that like conservative economics but are missing 2 legs of the stool that would make them conservative, while social conservatives are the true core of conservatism, it's base, the full 3 legged stool conservatives.

[PapaBear3625]

And once again:

Let's say Joe is against gay marriage, against drug use, against sex outside marriage. Joe is also in favor of continuing governmental welfare programs for the poor, considering it a Christian duty.

Do you consider Joe to be a conservative? Yes or no.

[PapaBear3625]

Now you seem to agree that libertarians are liberals that like conservative economics but are missing 2 legs of the stool that would make them conservative, while social conservatives are the true core of conservatism, it's base, the full 3 legged stool conservatives.

Actually, I'll take this last statement about "the full three-legged stool" as meaning that you will not consider anyone who is a supporter of the Welfare State as being a real social conservative.

In other words, you can't really be a social conservative unless you are also an economic conservative -- the full three-legged stool I mentioned in my post #39: "socially conservative AND fiscally conservative AND desirous of minimizing governmental power over individuals".

That's all I was getting at.

Although I will add that I know a bunch of economic conservatives who you would not consider social conservatives, who nevertheless never vote Democrat.

[ansel12]

Something that you can’t seem to understand, is that conservative means social conservative, economic and national defense conservative. Social conservatives are all three of those.

Not being social conservative usually means being democrat, but even those who are republicans, are weak rinos.

You reject conservatism, you clearly don’t like conservatives, as all this posting against conservatives shows, you admitted that you are a liberal/libertarian.

You don’t seem to understand how contradictory your beliefs are, being economically conservative, and socially liberal like yourself, doesn’t work.

Social liberalism breeds welfare and big government, it breeds dependency, and breaks families, communities, and societies, yet they all still get to vote, what kind of voting do you think that leads to?

You seem determined to stay away from your previous prideful declarations of being a liberal/libertarian, why is that?

[PapaBear3625]

Thank you for finally answering the question.

The question was:

Let's say Joe is against gay marriage, against drug use, against sex outside marriage. Joe is also in favor of continuing governmental welfare programs for the poor, considering it a Christian duty.

Do you consider Joe to be a conservative? Yes or no.

You answered:

Something that you can’t seem to understand, is that conservative means social conservative, economic and national defense conservative. Social conservatives are all three of those.

So your answer is "No, somebody who supports the welfare state or an increased role of government is not a conservative, even if he's pro-life and against gay marriage". That's all I was asking.

As far as your accusation that saying that I'm a "small-l libertarian" means that I'm a liberal, no it does not. It is simply a statement on what I consider priorities.

All of politics involves tradeoffs. You can't get 100% of everything you ask for. Everything you try to do will have some number of people supporting you for it, and some number of people opposing you over it. If your set of actions mobilize more people against you than support you, then you lose the next election. As a result, every politician has to prioritize what he spends his political capital on.

My priorities are shrinking the size and scope of government, reducing taxes, and not allowing infringements on my First and Second Amendment rights. If my politician accomplishes those goals, then I will support him, even if he failed to accomplish things that other people may find important.

A case in point is Gov Scott Walker of Wisconsin. He decided to strike a blow against public employees unions. He and the WI Repubs passed legislation which crippled the power of public employee unions, and saved the WI taxpayers a boatload of money. That's what they chose to spend their political capital on this term. They endured riots and protests and recall elections, but in the end they prevailed.

On the other hand, I didn't hear anything about accomplishing anything as regards restricting abortion, prohibiting gay marriage, or fighting pornography. If I was a WI resident, I would be fine with what they did accomplish.

[ex-snook]

Government should be ‘right sized’. When things are good, it should be small but when things are bad [war, depression], government needs to be bigger. Size should really not be part of determining what is a conservative. Conservative should mean more than conserving money, it should be more about preserving liberty and justice for all.

[ansel12]

Your question is a fake, made up question, as I have pointed out repeatedly, it is nonsense.

There is no voting block that is against premarital sex, abortion, the homosexual agenda, for prayer in school, against porn, and so on, that is pushing for more welfare, or that wants the government to maintain the existing welfare.

It doesn't exist, and that is why you cannot tell us who they are or how they vote, or even what party they vote for, they don't exist!

Your personal liberalism does exist, you posted the admission, and you are promoting it on this social conservative site.

Your agenda, your social liberalism is what creates big government and dependency, and your social liberal gains of the last 60 years has proven that.

You are a walking contradiction, that doesn't understand how you destroy economic conservatism.

[PapaBear3625]

Your question is a fake, made up question, as I have pointed out repeatedly, it is nonsense.

So why do you keep getting hysterical over simply being asked to answer a simple question?

[ansel12]

There is no voting block that is against premarital sex, abortion, the homosexual agenda, for prayer in school, against porn, and so on, that is pushing for more welfare, or that wants the government to maintain the existing welfare.

It doesn’t exist, and that is why you cannot tell us who they are or how they vote, or even what party they vote for, they don’t exist!

Your personal liberalism does exist, you posted the admission, and you are promoting it on this social conservative site.

Your agenda, your social liberalism is what creates big government and dependency, and your social liberal gains of the last 60 years has proven that.

You are a walking contradiction, that doesn’t understand how you destroy economic conservatism.