Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fiscal and Social Conservatives: Both are needed to fight cultural/fiscal liberalism, which are one.
National Review ^ | 01/22/2013 | Dennis Prager

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: conservatism; fiscal; lewrockwell; social

1 posted on 01/22/2013 7:24:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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


2 posted on 01/22/2013 7:33:25 AM PST by massmike (At least no one is wearing a "Ron Paul - 2016" tee shirt........yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


3 posted on 01/22/2013 7:37:25 AM PST by dowcaet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Social conservativsm” is another term for right wing statism.

No thanks. Go find another place to enlarge government


4 posted on 01/22/2013 7:46:11 AM PST by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes, no one talks of the fiscal/social liberal divide.

There is one but it doesn’t matter either.


5 posted on 01/22/2013 7:49:17 AM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32

>>>Social conservativsm” is another term for right wing statism.<<<

Opposing the slaughter of unborn children and same sex “marriage” is “right wing statism”?


6 posted on 01/22/2013 7:50:28 AM PST by Above My Pay Grade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


7 posted on 01/22/2013 7:59:22 AM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greene66

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?


8 posted on 01/22/2013 8:11:06 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


9 posted on 01/22/2013 8:13:22 AM PST by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


10 posted on 01/22/2013 8:22:01 AM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And Ron Paul libertarians need not apply.


11 posted on 01/22/2013 8:35:17 AM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! [You can vote Democrat when you're dead]...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32

if you want open borders and abortions for all, you are on the wrong website


12 posted on 01/22/2013 9:13:20 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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


13 posted on 01/22/2013 9:46:28 AM PST by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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


14 posted on 01/22/2013 9:46:28 AM PST by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
In an America that ignores genocides abroad?

"America is a friend of freedom everywhere, but a custodian only of our own."
--John Quincy Adams

15 posted on 01/22/2013 9:49:06 AM PST by frizzled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32

I don’t see any who are both social & fiscal conservatives who want to expand the welfare state


16 posted on 01/22/2013 10:08:53 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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


17 posted on 01/22/2013 10:32:20 AM PST by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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


18 posted on 01/22/2013 10:32:20 AM PST by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


19 posted on 01/22/2013 10:37:59 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (GOP = Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32

Do you think W was all that popular (minus 9-11 response) here on FR?


20 posted on 01/22/2013 10:40:59 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32

Conservatives are fully conservative, social liberals are liberals.


21 posted on 01/22/2013 11:02:30 AM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32
MadIsh32:

If you passionately desire the dismemberment of live unborn babies, the destruction of the institution of marriage, the "right" of fudgepackers to call their perversions "marriage," confiscation of firearms, and Obozo's international dictators' buttsmooching tour as he genuflects to our nation's enemies, and the crushing of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, all in favor of a mad passionate pursuit of $$$$, then don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

Mindless materialism is an albatross in all of its forms, left and/or right.

Sayonara, arrivaderci, ciao and good riddance!

Actual conservatives will not miss you.

22 posted on 01/22/2013 3:35:20 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32

You sound like a perfect little marxist; what are you doing here?


23 posted on 01/22/2013 4:32:56 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; MadIsh32
If you passionately desire the dismemberment of live unborn babies, the destruction of the institution of marriage, the "right" of fudgepackers to call their perversions "marriage," confiscation of firearms, and Obozo's international dictators' buttsmooching tour as he genuflects to our nation's enemies, and the crushing of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, all in favor of a mad passionate pursuit of $$$$, then don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
He hasn't advocated any of that. And you know that.
24 posted on 01/23/2013 1:32:53 PM PST by EveningStar ("What color is the sky in your world?" -- Frasier Crane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; MadIsh32
You sound like a perfect little marxist; what are you doing here?
Please point out the posts where MadIsh32 has advocated Marxism.
25 posted on 01/23/2013 1:36:56 PM PST by EveningStar ("What color is the sky in your world?" -- Frasier Crane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

What exactly is Free Trade Communism? I’m sure that I’m not alone in my inability to reconcile two such disparate ideas


26 posted on 01/23/2013 2:42:23 PM PST by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; MadIsh32; GeronL; Dr. Sivana; RitaOK
Evening Star:

Check out MadIsh32's #13 and #14 (those are identical) and #17 and #18 as well as GeronL's #16. MadIsh32 is a $$$ obsessive who wants to part ways with social conservatives. Can't happen soon enough for me.

Regarding $$$ as the issue we can get to AFTER we have parted ways suggests that MadIsh32 is an ally of the loony left on babies, marriage being reserved to ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN per marriage, has no problems with fudgepacking perversions posing as "marriage," and the oh sooooo current campaign of Obozo to attack religious freedom of Catholics and others by forcing pro-life and pro-family religions to pay for babyscraping and contraception in all opf its forms including the abortifacient kinds via Obozocare.

On your home page, you confess libertarianism, inter alia, but take care as MadIsh32 does not to distinguish your views on foreign and military policy from the neo-Neville Chamberlain lunacy of the thankfully retired Ron Paul as MadIsh32 does not.

OTOH, you do not distinguish yourself, as a libertarian or as a Libertarian, from the other views which you may well share with MadIsh32 and which I have noted above. I used to be a Libertarian Party state officer when I was in law school. Then I read Roe vs. Wade (with which I had thought I might agree), realized the perfidy of Herod Blackmun, the utter emptiness of Blackmun's naked power grab to cram the butchering of babies (a perfidy less colorfully noted by his far more noble colleague Byron "Whizzer" White) down the throat of each and every state. This issue, not endless haggling over federal budgets and who gets taxed to benefit which special interest group, is the defining issue of our nation and what remains of Western Civilization in our time. I resigned my Libertarian Party office and have not looked back, having become a grown up.

If, in addition to actually defending MadIsh32, you also agree with his apparent hostility to Western Civilization, then my advice to you is identical to my advice to MadIsh32. Just try and carry elections without the social conservatives (babies, guns, God, conventional marriage, resistance to perversions, military strength, etc.). The tail shall not wag the dog. You only express difference with the libertarians on military. That's nice but not enough.

There is a de facto alliance between economic conservatives and social conservatives. As Ron Paul has repeatedly learned (or been taught) the hard way, libertarianism does not suffice as a comprehensive worldview capable of supporting a viable American political movement. Many conservatives lack enthusiasm for the $$$$ agenda but do not allow that to prevent alliance with economic conservatives. If economic conservative want allies, they can swallow and support social conservatism or see what kind of deal Obozo and his pro-abortion, pro-perversion, anti-God, anti-gun, anti-military, anti-American (did I mention anti-capitalist???) ilk may wish to offer to libertarians. OTOH, libertarians may choose to beef up the anemic ranks of ruling class RINOs. No likely majority there either.

It would be very easy to restructure the conservative movement by replacing the $$$$ crowd with socially conservative (babies, guns, God, etc.) Americans of modest means (remember Reagan Democrats???). God loves people of modest means and that is why He made sooooo many more of them. Beef up Social Security and Medicare which Obozo has been gutting (note MadIsh32's resentment of Medicare Part D enacted by Dubya), re-establish Workfare with teeth, restore the US industrial base at the expense of those who have moved the jobs abroad, abrogate "free trade" treaties especially GATT and the WTO, abrogate as many sovereignty sapping treaties as necessary to restore American sovereignty, examine the history of PRIVATE SECTOR labor under Green and Meany (before the AFL-CIO went Marxist-Leninist and when it generally excluded government workers as members because private sector workers would have to pay their salaries) which created the great Middle Class of the 1950s-1970s. Perhaps, take advantage of labor law to compete in the private sector only with today's faux AFL-CIO, emphasizing collective bargaining and the grievance process only, thereby re-creating labor as it was originally intended. Encourage homeschooling and private schooling to replace the political training ground of P.S. 666, with an eye toward abolishing "gummint edjamakashun" in favor of actual education controlled by the parents. Encourage private employers NOT to use left institutions like colleges and universities to "credential" their potential employees. Let the employers decide what they want to employ and then abolish "human resources" departments in favor of competent review of job applications and actually conduct interviews. Drive the utterly ridiculous price of brick and mortar higher education back down to tolerable levels by stripping it of advantages and gummint subsidies. As a movement, develop competing forms of internet based quality higher education and aggressively market them. This will give economic libertarians something profitable to do to keep them busy and to prove their understanding and success at free enterprise rather than their mere rote repetition of the concededly brilliant ideas of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Robert Nozick and Milton Friedman. Attack, attack, attack!!!

The rest of the world might not like us any more??? Fine, repudiate the national debt insofar as it is owed to other nations and possibly the rest of it as well. If nothing else, that will insure that we won't be borrowing any more money for the foreseeable future and the government will thereafter be setting a moral and prudential example for our citizenry. If this idea makes libertarians queasy, then let the libertarians hold bake sales to pay the creditors. Include all T-bills, state and municipal bonds in the effective bankruptcy as well. After what Obozo did to General Motors' preferred stockholders, the left will be in no position to complain either.

I know what I know and you don't have a very good idea of what I know.

27 posted on 01/23/2013 6:28:20 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32

You’re on the wrong website. We’re all about “social conservative” rule, by way of the Constitution. Get a load of it sometime. It explains a lot.


28 posted on 01/23/2013 6:50:57 PM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

You are in the wrong movement

“Beef up social security and medicare”

The only way to do is via generational theft, coercion by the government and the consent of the sheep who are now being slaughtered.

You are simply a statist, just like the current White House occupant, but want the state to legislate things you like.


29 posted on 01/24/2013 6:15:40 AM PST by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty
Another article that is a covert attack on Social Conservatives
You are obviously not familiar with Dennis Prager. I assure you that he is both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative.
30 posted on 01/24/2013 10:07:05 AM PST by EveningStar ("What color is the sky in your world?" -- Frasier Crane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; MadIsh32; GeronL; Dr. Sivana; RitaOK
I think too much is being read into MadIsh32's comments.

Some people here view him as being out of step with the forum because he doesn't agree 100% with them. What thinking person agrees 100% with anyone? He seems to me to be authentically conservative.

However, given the irrational mentality of some, I won't be surprised if they succeed in getting him banned.

You wanted me to expand on my views.

I value truth and rationality.

I definitely believe in the values Western Civilization. I believe that some cultures are superior to others and I believe that Western Civilization is the superior culture.

I have a lot of respect for Dennis Prager.

31 posted on 01/24/2013 10:40:01 AM PST by EveningStar ("What color is the sky in your world?" -- Frasier Crane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; MadIsh32; BlackElk

In my case, you’re probably quite right. I don’t even know the poster, at comment #4, and didn’t follow the thread to conclusion.

Many valuable beliefs are wrapped up in “social conservativism” that used to be appreciated and broadly accepted as Christian principles to actually live by. They are all more than at risk now, they are under open attack, condoned now by forces and powers that we once called out as downright evil.

Religion, speech, gun rights, freedom are derived from social conservatism, making possible the foundations for forming the colonies, and the Constitution.

A remark as in comment # 4 came across as arrogant and dismissive of truth, and was was so crudely stated, blunt, brief, and begging for a smack. Trying to hide an insult behind appearing to oppose statism is still an insult, you know what I mean?

Thanks, Rita


32 posted on 01/24/2013 12:23:43 PM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32
I am in the right movement, the conservative movement. I have been a state chairman of Young Republicans, Young Americans for Freedom, College Republicans, and of the state affiliate of the American Conservative Union, a member of the national executive committee of Young Republican National Federation and a member of the College Republican National Committee. As a state chairman of YAF, I would not allow national literature calling for abolition of Social Security to be distributed in my state. I was a state officer of the Libertarian Party before I grew up upon reading Roe vs. Wade and seeing the "libertarian" response thereto.

I was a Republican nominee for US Congress the year I graduated law school. Most importantly, I was state chairman of Ronald Reagan's challenge to worthless Gerald Ford as Ayn Rand had a pro-Ford nervous breakdown because Reagan was running as a pro-lifer (see the Ayn Rand Letters of 1976), thereby embarrassing herself by revealing her real hierarchy of "values." I also had a low-ranking staff position as a driver for Reagan's 1968 campaign at the GOP national convention when he sought the GOP POTUS nomination in 1968 before I was even a member of any of the above-cited organizations.

Now, if you think that abolishing Social Security and Medicare are positions that whatever movement you imagine yourself part of should go to domestic war for, welcome to the Libertarian Party and its traditional ceiling of 1% of the vote. You might want to tear down socialist abominations such as the light houses and let the socialist National Defense Highway System rot into ruins rather than offend the sensibilities of long-dead libertarian sages such as Lysander Spooner (himself a gummint postmaster but never mind).

Generational theft??? You forgot to also whine about another Sean Hannity favorite: CLASS WARFARE!!! (lions and tigers and bears, oh my!!!). Actually class warfare is OK with Sean so long as it is a one-way war in which the folks don't fight back. George Washington (rumored to be a Founding Father) warned that government could be a fearful master. And more than two hundred years later you are surprised, surprised, surprised!!! Puhleeze!

Other examples of my statism: I and the 13th Amendment are opposed to re-establishing slavery. I and the 14th Amendment oppose the slaughter of 55 million innocent babies in utero. I and Judaeo-Christian civilization (and ost other civilizations) bitterly cling to the old notion that each marriage is between one man and one woman (no fudgepackers, no twelvesomes, no pestering the household pets or farm animals, no liaisons with space aliens). Reactionary!!! Just the kind of boy I am.

I shall gladly join with others to abolish Obozocare (not least because it REQUIRES persecution of my Catholic Faith [and other pro-life faiths] and its [their] institutions by forcing the Church and its members who are employers to pay for abortion and contraception coverage even for elderly and senile nuns) for a wide variety of reasons which cannot be fixed. If you want to abolish Medicare and Social Security, I am NOT jumping on board without considering available alternatives now that my life (and many other people's lives) is/are organized with both in mind.

BTW, Roe vs. Wade was fedgov COERCION, forcing state toleration of the mass slaughter of 55 million unborn infants to date and counting, a generational theft of their very lives for the convenience of their amoral and immoral elders, and certainly without the consent of the unborn who are the actual sheep slaughtered by surgical dismemberment in the womb. The absence of the aborted has impoverished us all, financially and otherwise. Would you join Ebenezer Scrooge by classifying the innocents as folks who then need to hurry up and die for your convenience and that of others???

To paraphrase your last paragraph: You are simply an airhead just like the current White House occupant (though far less practical or likely to make public policy) but want the state to live out your ideological fantasies and devil take the hindmost.

As Bill Buckley once said of one time showgirl and First Lady Betty Ford's views quite similar to your own views, you have not thought this through and you leave us to wonder whether you are capable of thinking it through.

33 posted on 01/24/2013 4:44:44 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Melas; SeminoleCounty
Melas:

American defense contractors are also business leaders. They practice capitalism. Allowing them to sell nuclear weapons or B-2 bombers or Ohio class boomers to North Korea and Comrade Kim might be one example of "Free Trade Communism" as well as one example of gross and counterproductive stupidity. It's easy to come up with other examples if you really try!

34 posted on 01/24/2013 4:51:41 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK; MadIsh32; BlackElk
Religion, speech, gun rights, freedom are derived from social conservatism, making possible the foundations for forming the colonies, and the Constitution.
I do not think of myself as a social conservative but I do follow those values - except for the religion part. I do believe in God, but I'm not religious.

The problem I have with some social conservatives is that they are quite comfortable with big government in their lives if it supports their own agendas.

35 posted on 01/24/2013 5:13:49 PM PST by EveningStar ("What color is the sky in your world?" -- Frasier Crane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; MadIsh32; RitaOK
Evening Star:

I take you at your word as to your beliefs.

I have not followed Dennis Prager in recent years, When he had a syndicated talk radio show that was broadcast by syndication in New York City, I believe that he favored abortion being legal but that he regarded it as undesirable. If his views have evolved to the point where he favors making abortion prohibited and punishable by law, then good for him! He used to really struggle with his position on the issue as have many others.

I have never tried to get anyone banned here. I think Jim Rob started this thread and so I pinged him. Unrestrained and freewheeling verbal volleys are quite sufficient, consistent with forum rules. This is JimRob's living room. I do not presume to establish rules here since I am a mere guest here myself.

MadIsh32 seems quite libertarian and NOT very conservative as my exchanges with MadIsh32 tend to prove. Prager's article correctly observes that fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are a package. I would also believe that there will be NO "fiscal conservatism" in the absence of social conservatism. Conservatism is a far richer tapestry than is imagined by those who would limit it to tight-fisted $$$$ obsession. That path leads to the same dead end destination as amoral and immoral socialist Europe where no actual conservative wants to wind up.

I do believe that social conservatism is possible among those who are of the fiscal left. Most of Europe is to our left economically even while we are ruled by Obozo. I am unaware of anywhere in Europe being as socially revolutionary as the US has been since Roe vs. Wade. Even "gays" are demonstrating against "gay""marriage" in the streets of Paris as we write. European nations are much more inclined to restrict abortion than is the US.

Truth and reason and Western Civilization are certainly to be included in any conservative canon of beliefs. It must be conceded that Western Civilization is built upon Judaeo-Christian morality and Natural Law and Scripture. Many libertarians fail to "get" that and many refuse to "get" it.

I don't believe that I have been irrational in opposing MadIsh32's views. If you disagree, please specify reasons. MadIsh32 wants to be a conscientious objector in the social issue wars of our time. That makes it exceedingly difficult for MadIsh32 to be a legitimate part of the conservative movement. See his #4 for example and his exchanges with me.

36 posted on 01/24/2013 5:26:16 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; MadIsh32; All

Has MadIsh32 addressed abortion? If so, where?


37 posted on 01/24/2013 5:30:10 PM PST by EveningStar ("What color is the sky in your world?" -- Frasier Crane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I don’t expect to agree with anyone 100% and I haven’t tried to get anyone banned. I do reserve the right to tell those who disagree with me that they are wrong though. :p

Just for the record


38 posted on 01/24/2013 9:02:28 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

bump!!


39 posted on 01/24/2013 9:09:48 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
I have no problem with a government being sufficiently "big" to prosecute murder of adults or children, rape, burglary, larceny, assault, treason and the intentional surgical or chemical killing of innocent babies in the womb (55 million to date and counting). If that's my "agenda," rest assured that I am damn proud of it and will never vote for another money-obsessive social issue barbarian offered up by the GOP-E for POTUS. I did not vote for Romney and will vote for no more social issue apostates at any level on any party line. As you can see from last year's results, I am not alone in that determination. Think I am wriong? Ask President Romney. Oh wait...!

You don't have to share my Faith or any faith. You are free to be a deist, an agnostic, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Sikh or any number of other affiliations. America is a free country for you as well as for me. It is in the very First Amendment.

That Catholicism regards larceny as sinful does not mean that our laws cannot regard larceny as criminal. That Baptists regard bank robbery as evil does not mean it should not be criminal. That many faiths regard abortion as the intentional killing of a human being and therefore gravely sinful likewise does not mean that it ought not be a crime and a serious crime. Abortion is a crime against humanity and most certainly NOT some sort of human right whatever Planned Barrenhood, NARAL,the ACLU and the "Southern Poverty Law Center" may hallucinate.

40 posted on 01/24/2013 10:23:49 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; MadIsh32
Evening Star:

See his/her #4, #13, #14, #17. He/she says that "the sooner we go our separate ways the sooner we all just break up and go our separate ways the better off the right will be in this country." That is the one thing posted by MadIsh32 that I can agree with. Absolutely the SOONER THE BETTER. After the GOP Wall Street big shots crammed soulless pro-abort, pro-lavender, gun grabbing, foreign policy indifferent, $$$$ Mittler down our throats as POTUS candidate 2012, we have an even deeper hole to dig out of and it is time to take out the social revolutionary trash once and for all.

41 posted on 01/24/2013 10:32:59 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; RitaOK

See also #40 1nd #41. God bless!


42 posted on 01/24/2013 10:34:51 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

bump


43 posted on 01/24/2013 10:52:10 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

I think that would more appropriately be described as mercenary capitalism than communism. Unscrupulous capitalism, ie, putting profit above any and all moral concerns, is certainly not laudable, but neither is it communism. Communism by its very definition entails state ownership of enterprise, which again, by definition precludes the profit seeking motive of the individual.


44 posted on 01/24/2013 11:57:43 PM PST by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Well, communism has been defined as dialectical materialism. The "capitalist" who would serve as armorer for North Korea's Little Fat Boy III Kim Whatzisname is also engaged in a form of materialism that is only arguably more respectable. Driving the get away car for the bank robbers is not in itself bank robbery but it is hardly innocence.

How many ostensibly non-communist souls have been purchased by "capitalist" George Soros? Is capitalism his philosophy? It may be his way of life but that is a different matter.

The armorer for the dictator is scarcely distinguishable from the dictator.

This discussion smacks of the style of the college bull sessions in which I engaged so many, many years ago. Instead of bull sessions, we should have been engaged in fighting Mark Rudd, Bill Ayers, Bernardine the Radical Queen, Jerry Rubin Abbie Hoffman, Huey P. Newton, H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael, Bobby Seale and their marionettes like Ted Kennedy, Bill and Hillary, Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barak Insane Obozo, but arguing about how many Marxists might dance on the head of a pin was a more leisurely activity which could be indulged comfortably indoors over a nice wine and some savory cheese, maybe order in some pizzas (we lived in the city that is to pizza what Fatima and Lourdes are to Catholics: the city where Yale is located), Clinton, John Kerry, Barak Insane Obozo, et al., three of whom were in the same city at approximately the same time.

Profit motive??? Who got the first new deluxe washing machine and dryer in their society? Mrs. Brezhnev or Ms. J. Random Peasantsky??? Likewise personal income: Mr. Brezhnev or Mr. Peasantsky??? The palatial dacha out in the picturesque countryside? The Brezhnevs or the Peasantskys??? In scrupulous capitalist societies, who rides Air Force One, takes an army of cronies at taxpayer expense to vacation in Mumbai or the Spanish Riviera, has permanent Secret Service protection, spends about half of a life on the very finest golf courses and has a lifestyle beyond the imagination of medieval emperors? The Obozos or the ruling family of Citibank or J. Random Taxpayer???

It is getting harder and harder to distinguish (at least by results to the rulers) between "capitalism" and communism. BTW, in genuine capitalism, the duty of those running corporations to produce a maximum profit to the stockholders IS a moral concern. Don't you agree?

Meanwhile: Lenin, Stalin, Bulganin, Krushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev did profited rather magnificently as individuals, especially for individuals supposedly leading the opposition to "capitalism."

45 posted on 01/25/2013 5:45:37 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson