Posted on 01/22/2013 7:23:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
For some years now, we have been told about a major division within American conservatism: fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives.
This division is hurting conservatism and hurting America, because the survival of American values depends on both fiscal and social conservatism. Furthermore, the division is logically and morally untenable. A conservative conserves all American values, not just economic ones.
By social conservatism I am referring to the second and third components of what I call the American Trinity — Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum.
It is worth noting that a similar bifurcation does not exist on the left. One never hears the term “fiscal liberals.” Why not? Because those who consider themselves liberals are liberal across the board, fiscally and socially.
The Left understands that values are a package. Apparently, many conservatives — libertarians, for example — do not. They think that we can sustain liberty while ignoring God and religion, and ignoring American nationalism and exceptionalism.
It is true that small government and liberty are at the heart of the American experiment. But they are dependent on two other values: a God-based religious vigor in the society and the melting-pot ideal.
Or, to put it another way, small government and fiscal conservatism will not survive the victory of social leftism.
The Founders made it clear that liberty is not only dependent upon small government, but upon society’s affirming God-based values. Not having imbibed the Enlightenment foolishness that people are basically good, the Founders understood that in order for a society to prosper without big government, its citizens had to hold themselves accountable to something other than, higher than, the brute force of the state. That something is God and the Judeo-Christian religions that are its vehicle.
Those who believe in a small state — fiscal conservatives — need to know that a small state is dependent on a big God and therefore on a God-centered population. Look at Europe for confirmation. As secularism expands, so does the state. And that is what is happening in America.
Fiscal conservatives, such as libertarians, don’t make this connection. They view small government as an achievable end in and of itself, divorced from the social and religious values the American people hold.
Western and Chinese apologists for the Communist Chinese regime argue the same thing — that economic freedom is divisible from other values.
I am in no way morally equating American libertarians and other fiscal conservatives with Chinese Communists. Libertarians hate Communism. I am only pointing out that they agree on the separation of economic and social values; on the dispensability of God and religion; on America’s not interfering in other nations, no matter how great the evil; and more.
Fiscal conservatives who consider themselves conservative need to imagine what type of America they will bequeath to future generations if the only conservative value that survives is fiscal conservatism.
Do you really want to live in an America that is godless, where liberty derives from the state, and where moral values derive from each individual’s heart? In an America that ignores genocides abroad? In an America that so radically redefines marriage — to meaning the union of anyone and anyone — that it no longer has a moral justification to prohibit polygamy or incest? In an America that has no moral opinion on abortion, even if performed solely, let us say, for reasons of the fetus’s gender? In an America that embraces multiculturalism rather than the melting-pot ideal?
My goal here is not to expel from the conservative movement those who are conservative only with regard to fiscal matters. May God bless them (even those who do not believe in Him), and may they long vote Republican. My goal is to bring them to social conservatism.
Because a conservative conserves. And not just money.
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His most recent book is Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph. He is the founder of Prager University
Commentary: Conservatives need to wake up & see the threat.
“Social” and “fiscal” issues the same to those out to destabilize society.
When the radical homosexual organizations and the “Occupy” movement team up to brutally stop a Tea Party rally, what else do you need to know? They are clearly natural allies in the effort to destabilize our society.
A vocal minority of Tea Party people in Massachusetts were skittish and upset when the Tea Party Coalition decided to include so-called “social issues” in their repertoire of topics for that event. “It will hurt our brand” or “it will alienate people” or “it’s not what the Tea Party is about” were some whines we all heard.
Well, guess what? They rioters see it all as one big movement. They understand that “social issues” and “fiscal issues” are two sides of the same coin that can radically change America. (And of course, that’s how every philosopher from Marx to Jefferson saw it, because it is so.) A nation’s fiscal policies are merely the product of its overall morality and ideology. To have a solid constitutional government along with a population that can’t control its passions or morality is simply a pipe dream.
(In fact, the rioters jeered Carla Howell, a fiscal-issues-only Libertarian speaker — who took pains to inform them she is pro-gay marriage! — just as loudly that day!)
But more importantly, this event should make it clear that as soon as the Tea Party — or anyone — gets in the radicals’ way, this is what will happen. These people have no rules except to destroy those who disagree with them. You think you can agree with them on “gay rights” but disagree with them on taxes? Think again. With these people it’s all or nothing. And so it should also be with those who are fighting for what’s right.
http://massresistance.com/docs/gen2/12b/tea_party_0415/commentary.html
Good article. The GOP civil war that is brewing is exactly what the Democrats want and as many problems I have neocons and other moderate types is it worth the infighting with the country in real peril? We’re waiting for that 100% pure conservative and he or she isn’t out there. Conservatives are fighting amongst themselves and this resulted in Romney getting the presidential nomination last year after Gingrich and Santorum cancelled each other out. I don’t how we heal the rift but I know one thing for sure the other side is dangerous and fatal to our country’s future and finding common cause with them is a useless gesture at this point.
“Social conservativsm” is another term for right wing statism.
No thanks. Go find another place to enlarge government
Yes, no one talks of the fiscal/social liberal divide.
There is one but it doesn’t matter either.
>>>Social conservativsm” is another term for right wing statism.<<<
Opposing the slaughter of unborn children and same sex “marriage” is “right wing statism”?
I’ve always found both fiscal and social conservatism to be intrisically related. They should fit hand-in-glove. When one is missing, it’s like a vacuum. And that vacuum always gets filled by creeping liberalism.
Over and over again, I’ve been taught to be wary of any so-called “conservative” who just fits one side of that coin. It always winds up in disaster.
RE: I’ve always found both fiscal and social conservatism to be intrisically related
Let’s discuss this ( just for the sake of understanding ). Is it possible to be for limited government and yet at the same time, be for gay marriage? ( i.e., what you do with your sexuality is none of my or other people’s business ).
If not, why not?
Prager is guilty of over simplification here, and there is just no getting around that. There is no magic switch that secular conservatives can flip so that they suddenly believe in a God. I know, I number myself among them. I would love to be able to believe that I’m in possession of an immortal soul, and that I don’t “really” have more days behind me than in front of me. However, no amount of want turns the skepticism off and allows me to believe.
It’s equally, if not more so, foolhardy to expect those without religious beliefs to embrace anyway.
Obviously, it’s possible for someone to take that position of supporting small-government and be for gay marriage. But, I would not consider such a person a conservative, as their support of society-decaying degeneracy would basically undermine any advantage to having small-government positions. And I would certainly not support or vote for anyone taking those positions. Under any circumstances, no matter how vile the opposition.
And Ron Paul libertarians need not apply.
if you want open borders and abortions for all, you are on the wrong website
A coalition of those who seek less government, seek to legislate “Judeo-Christian” morality through government, and seek to expand the welfare state in the guise of “national security” simply will not stand the test of time, as is being proven today.
The sooner people realize this the quicker we can move on to addressing the most serious issue of our time; that being the fiscal solvency of the United States and its citizens
A coalition of those who seek less government, seek to legislate “Judeo-Christian” morality through government, and seek to expand the welfare state in the guise of “national security” simply will not stand the test of time, as is being proven today.
The sooner people realize this the quicker we can move on to addressing the most serious issue of our time; that being the fiscal solvency of the United States and its citizens
"America is a friend of freedom everywhere, but a custodian only of our own."
--John Quincy Adams
I don’t see any who are both social & fiscal conservatives who want to expand the welfare state
What the heck were 8 years of W about then?
Medicare Part D
NCLB
Faith based initatives
The gross over expansion of the military (which lends itself to feeding welfare parisites disguised as “contractors” around the beltway)
W and Congress were supposedly both but failed.
Again, the sooner we all just breakup and go our separate ways the better off the right will be in this country
What the heck were 8 years of W about then?
Medicare Part D
NCLB
Faith based initatives
The gross over expansion of the military (which lends itself to feeding welfare parisites disguised as “contractors” around the beltway)
W and Congress were supposedly both but failed.
Again, the sooner we all just breakup and go our separate ways the better off the right will be in this country
Another article that is a covert attack on Social Conservatives
Fiscal Conservatives are neither
The GOP loses elections pushing Free Trade Communism, going soft on Illegal Aliens, and attacking Christian Conservatives. None of those are anywhere near conservative ideas.
Strong social conservative values bring out the conservative base.
Do you think W was all that popular (minus 9-11 response) here on FR?
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.