Posted on 03/04/2014 8:10:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If there were as many “fiscal conservatives” as there are people who claim to be, it is hard to see how Republicans would lose as many elections as they do.
One frequently hears this political self-identification: “I’m socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.” Or: “If the Republicans weren’t conservative on so many social issues, I would vote Republican.” Or: “It’s too bad the Christian Right dominates the Republican party. I would vote for the Republicans on fiscal issues, but I can’t stand the religious Right.”
The same sentiment holds among many inside the Republican party. Most secular conservatives and the libertarian wing of the party agree: Let’s jettison all this social stuff (most prominently opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, and this unnecessary commitment to religion) and just stand for small government and personal liberty.
To many people these positions sound reasonable, even persuasive. They shouldn’t.
Here’s why.
It is hard to believe that people who call themselves fiscal conservatives and vote for Democrats would suddenly abandon the Democratic party if only the Republican party embraced same-sex marriage and abortion.
The Left and its political party will always create social issues and tout them in divisive terms that make Republicans and conservatives look “reactionary.” Today it is same-sex marriage, the next day it is the Republican “war on women,” and soon it will be ending the objective male-female designation of Americans (including at birth, because children should have the “right” to determine their gender and not have their parents and their genitalia determine it). Or it will be animal rights, race-based affirmative action, or an environmentalist issue. Concerning the latter, how many “fiscal conservatives” who vote for Democrats are prepared to abandon the party on the “climate change” issue? I suspect very few.
Fiscally conservative Democrats are thus fooling themselves and others when they announce that they would abandon the Democratic party if only the Republicans weren’t socially conservative. They didn’t leave the Democrats before same-sex marriage was an issue, and they won’t leave them if same-sex marriage ceases to be an issue.
Let’s turn now to God and religion, the most obvious arena of social conservatism. Among the secular conservatives, libertarians, and secular-fiscal conservatives who vote Democratic, there are many who claim they would vote for Republicans if the party were not home to so many social conservatives who are so adamant about God and religion.
This group, too, is fooling itself. Anyone who thinks that you can have smaller government — the central goal for libertarians and other fiscal conservatives — outside the framework of Judeo-Christian religions and their God-based values fails to understand both the Founders and human nature.
The entire American experiment in smaller government — and even in secular government — was based on the presumption that Americans individually would be actively religious. Unlike Europeans of the Enlightenment era — and unlike the Left today — the Founders understood that people are not basically good. That is a defining belief of Judaism as well as of Christianity. Therefore, to be good, the great majority of people need moral religion and belief in accountability to a morally judging God. In other words, you will have either the big God of Judaism and Christianity or the big state of the Left.
Social conservatives know that they need fiscal conservatives. They know that the bigger the state, the smaller the God. They know that proponents of the ever-larger state want their own gods, such as Mother Earth, to replace the Bible’s God. Fiscal conservatives must come to understand that they need social conservatives, too. They need them philosophically, as I’ve suggested, and they need them politically. There will never be enough Americans who are fiscally but not socially conservative to win a national election. Sorry.
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist.
The last time this happened republicans won the white house for 12 years.
“I’m conservative, but...”= seminar poster
What force empowers abortion and homosexual marriage? Why was it that before Roe v Wade, TWO THIRDS of the states outlawed abortion? Why is it that homosexuals have to go to court in order to have what they consider their "rights" respected?
Dennis Prager, government IS A FORCE. It isn't a philosophy, it isn't an intangible bundle of wishes, it isn't a theory, it isn't "just on paper." Government is a force.
Without the FORCE of government behind them, the homosexual AND abortion agendas would be DEAD IN THE WATER. Government, socially "involved" government, is the FORCE that has nourished and enabled the abortion and homosexual lobbies to override the majority of Americans who are obviously opposed to both; if they weren't opposed to abortion and the gay agenda, then government wouldn't need to step in and force Americans to accept abortion and homosexuality.
The best way to achieve a MORAL society, the best way to see America become MORE moral, more in keeping with the Judeo-Christian ethic, is to REDUCE government. Social conservatives fail to understand that, and that is Christian conservatives like me see them as righteous statists with Christian morality; they are ONLY "conservatives" if the word "conservative" is code for "Judeo-Christian morality." To make "conservative" code for "Judeo-Christian morality" is stupid and self-defeating.
Lack of government "prohibiting" gay marriage (an oxymoron, and outlawing gay marriage is like outlawing unicorns) and lack of government preventing abortion, is not the problem, Dennis!! Before government stepped in, Americans, who are on balance moral and righteous, REJECTED BOTH all on their own. It was ONLY when government stepped in to force the majority to surrender to both the gay and abortion lobbies, that this problem happened.
Reduce government, reduce the problem. Morality in American would THRIVE if the FORCE of government was neutered and reduced to the bare essentials FORMED ON THE JUDEO CHRISTIAN ETHIC as the Founders did at the start.
The problem is the fiscal liberals and social conservatives like Huckabee give social conservatives a bad name.
Note to the religious right - fiscal conservatives are your allies.
There is no religious right, nor middle, nor left.
What there was ... was the Republican Party brass who established a gravitational point in order to raise votes.
Yet with those votes, came the voters and their expression.
Now *that,* the RNC/Republican Party Hair Club for Men could not tolerate. In meetings, some Bible-thumpers were obstinate. The RP brass were indignant; how dare anybody challenge the RINO! Soon after, came a rise of conservative grass roots rebellion among *immigrants* particularly in Florida, who objected to the Clinton/Reno “progressives” sending young Elian back to Cuba.
Since then, the Money Talks RINO have been trying to distance themselves from grass roots conservatives -and- get as close to being Progressives with Money But for Lower Taxes for Themselves.
Unfortunately, that idea went to the wayside at the turn of the century when socialists like Wilson entered the scene. We have been sliding into the leftist big state abyss ever since.
Great post.
Note to the religious right - fiscal conservatives are your allies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you read the article? Fiscal conservatives WHO ARE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES are our allies.
Libertarians; small goverment idealists; fiscal only; RINO’s; etc.... can all go take a hike unless they are socially conservative.
Can one really be a fiscal conservative and reject social and moral values? I'm not so sure.
Moral Absolutes Ping!
Freepmail Responsibility2nd or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list. FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search [ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Just a note. I don’t expect the stupid wing of social conservatives to agree.
Thank you kindly.
Resp2nd, the word "conserve" has two primary definitions.
One is to "protect from harm or decay." That is what "conserving" is under that definition.
The other is "to use something sparingly." That is what "conserving" is under that definition.
So as a self-described conservative, Responsibility2nd, WHICH kind of "conservative" are you? Are you one who seeks to use government to "protect" American culture "from harm and decay"?
OR are you the kind of "conservative" who seeks to "use [government] sparingly"?
Has Free Republic really been reduced to a level where social conservative values are openly attacked?
What a shame.
Silly post, it didn’t say anything, it was a weird way of just telling people to let abortion and gay marriage be, don’t vote to stop what is happening.
can all go take a hike unless they are socially conservative.
Social liberals already vote for the left, while social conservatives vote for small government and fiscal conservatism.
That is the reality of how the vote breaks down with Southern Baptists voting 80% conservative, while atheists vote 80% left.
The social liberals want to create a lie that is the opposite of the reality.
Since social liberalism makes it impossible for fiscal conservatism to exist, then fiscal conservatives have to fight social liberalism, or else they are destroying fiscal conservatism.
A big tent works for me. That said...Can we give the Losertarians to the green party?
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.