Posted on 03/02/2010 10:18:02 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
...Yet, as is always the case with popular movements whose star is rising, there are always those who want to hitch their wagons and use the movement to promote their own, often contrary, agendas. Such is the case with the gaggle of partway-conservatives — Ron Paulians, social libertarians, third partyists of every stripe and color — trying to latch onto the conservative freight train. One of the effects of this in recent months has been the attempt by many to downplay or even eliminate the place of social conservatism in the conservative alliance. Driven by libertarian types, there seems to be a concerted effort from some quarters to push social conservatism, and social conservatives by extension, out of the conservative resurgence. The argument (flawed, by the way) is that social conservatism — with its opposition to radical social lunacies such as gay marriage and unhindered access to abortion — is as inimical to freedom as economic socialism is. Hence, social libertarians and other supporters of social radicalism are using the opportunity to try to hijack the Tea Parties, hijack the activism, and hijack the conservative movement....
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Ping for your interest!
Oh wait...
The argument is that giving the government at Washington power over the things that SoCons are passionate about is giving it WAY too much power.
There is no general police power at the Federal level.
SoCons have still not digested just how much harm they did after Michael Schiavo got away with murder by their attempts to federalize the Florida statutes.
My impression of the Tea Party Movement is the exact opposite of this. It seems to be that it was started by the libertarian elements and has been slowly taken over by the social conversative types.
It’s going to be fascinating to see what the Tea Party Movement looks like 8 months from now. Because someone is going to win.
I suspect it will be the socons.
IMHO, the tea partiers are mostly 'mom & pop' Conservatives (NOT libertarians) who lean GOP (as long as they listen). The Rondamentalists are attempting to hijack the Tea Party Movement, not the other way around.
A description, not a picture, of a 'typical' Libertarian at cPAC who voted in the 'straw poll':
I don't think any (l)ibertarians are trying to marginalize Social Conservatives in the GOP. All (l)ibertarians in the GOP know we CANNOT WIN without SoCons. Period.
If anything, there's more effort to remove (l)ibertarians from the GOP.
“Yeah, just look at Scott Brown, he ran really hard on all the social stuff while barely mentioning the fiscal stuff and he still won big in Massachusetts”
yeah we’re going to be defined by Massachusetts /sarc
Great post. I agree.
I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. After all, it was conservatives like Ronald Reagan who "redefined" marriage by signing into law the "no-fault divorce" laws. Conservatives will not now be heard to complain that marriage ain't "one man and one woman together to have and raise children, for life" anymore when they played such a key role in gutting that whole concept in the first place.
Conservatives assented first to changing the "to have children" element by embracing contraception en masse, including in the most "conservative" churches. Then these same "social conservatives" like Ronald Reagan agreed to strike the "for life" element by accepting the no-fault divorce laws.
I have little patience now with their complaining about changing the "one man and one woman" part of the definition. The mass acceptance of contraception and no-fault divorce laws de jure destroyed the legal institution of "marriage as covenant" as it was always understood in the Christian West. By jettisoning these elements of the covenant it left the institution open to anybody who wants its benefits - like gays and polygamists.
At this point in my opinion it's best to throw in the towel and get rid of the notion of state-sponsored "marriage" altogether. It's really a sort of false advertising. What social conservatives actually now avail themselves of when they get a marriage license isn't biblical marriage at all. So let's get honest about it and admit that we're all just talking about "domestic partnerships." The government has some interest in the financial aspects of these "at will" contracts that are falsely passing themselves off as "marriages." That's it.
Let's get honest about the fact that traditional marriage is dead in America, and about the role we Christians played in killing it.
As to abortion, I think that we should stop trying to federalize the issue. It was always an issue for the States, and Roe and all those "rights emanating from penumbras" cases were a baldfaced power grab by SCOTUS. I think that we would do far better focusing efforts on de-federalizing the abortion issue, where we can fight it out on more level ground statehouse by statehouse.
if abortion is up to the states it won’t be an issue that unites the GOP on all levels anymore. Liberals will take over the national ticket.
That's probably true, and a good point. Do you see that as a negative thing?
I mean, if we de-federalized the abortion issue then we'd have a good chance of making the great majority of abortions illegal in the great majority of states. That's good.
Saving the lives of innocent children is the only issue. Keeping the GOP together is neither here nor there.
“I mean, if we de-federalized the abortion issue then we’d have a good chance of making the great majority of abortions illegal in the great majority of states. That’s good.”
I’m not sure it would. Liberals have taken over the schools. They have taken over the popular culture. You don’t take it back with an invisible campaign. Why do you think Sarah Palin is such a big deal? She is the national voice of the pro-life movement and that influences everyone, not just Alaskans.
they may not even be conservatives. Just regular folks who are sick and tired of all these deficits.
If the GOP needs the abortion issue to keep itself in business at the national level, then I say it either needs to find another issue or the devil take the GOP.
the paradox is that the only way for abortion to go back to the states is if that became a national issue.
I believe, myself, that marriage will be restored.
But not in my lifetime, and not by today's "conservatives".
Social conservatism, in terms of screaming about Jesus, is a smart strategy in the bible belt, but not as succesful elsewhere. Certain “social issues” (ie law and order, immigration) do have traction elsewhere, and can play to our advantages. Different regions call for different strategies.
Google "Pierre Poujade" and you will see SP's closest equivalent outside of the US. Much like Poujade, Sarah Palin receives alot of attention from the media, has supporters who scream like banshees about being "the common people" when in fact they are but a fraction of the overall electorate. Much like Poujade, Sarah Palin will ultimately fail and become a historical footnote for having neither substance, nor large scale support apart from her cult.
Demint/Daniels 2012
I think the term “social conservative” is nonsensical.
Conservatism is realizing the value of what you have inherited and “conserving” it by careful reform rather than radical revolutionary change. You don’t find value only in “social” or societal aspects of your culture, nation, and society and leave the rest unappreciated or protecteded.
“Social Conservatism” sounds like a term invented to imply reactionary radicalism — “a social conservative wants to go back to __________ (white majority culture, closeted gays, theocratic local laws, etc).
Likewise, much of what a conservative wants to value and protect has very little to do with Federal Government if Federal Government was in its proper limited confines.
I am reminded of a recent "Christian" film called "Fireproof." This movie was all about how Jesus can save your marriage. But note that both the husband and wife in this troubled marriage were not only childless themselves but were were single children. That means that both they and their parents bought into the contraceptive culture. And the megachurch that produced this film apparently doesn't see anything wrong with that picture.
Certainly anything the megachurch maker of that film has nothing important to say about marriage as a bedrock social institution, or perhaps better to say that they join the worst of the liberals in subverting it.
But like I wrote above, it's already "game over." It's over, folks. Marriage in the West went, and not with a bang but a whimper.
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.