Posted on 11/20/2012 8:42:54 AM PST by Scooter100
I am wondering about the structure of a third "Constitutional" party. Would it be better to form a party exclusively on a fiscal issues basis? What would be the pros and cons of taking social issues completely off the table? I mean, are there really enough "social issues" in the text of the Constitution itself to warrant making them a permanent policy of a new party and subsequently risking vicious debate and division? I guess I am thinking of the inevitability of Conservatives locking antlers with the "socially" left wing of the Libertarians", who are otherwise fiscally right wing. Shouldn't social issues be contained closer to the people, i.e., at the state/local levels?
I mean the pronouncement that “social conservatives are the conservatives of America”. That statement speaks of a sense of ownership and entitlement to being the arbiters of conservativism.
bump
Another dishonest post, conservatives want atheists to vote conservative, and a tiny fraction (very tiny) of them do, they don't want them to try and end conservatism as you are trying to do. We are merely trying to make you Conservative, and less liberal, or a least less hostile to conservatism.
When you work as hard as you do to shut out conservatives and conservatism from their own politics and party, then you are the villain, the hostile party, not the conservatives themselves.
Bingo! Does that make a social "conservative" who wants to legislate their religious viewpoints actually a liberal?
Note that there are many more self-identified Evangelicals (or Catholics for that matter) that either do not vote or or vote for liberals than there are voters in the whipping-boy constituencies such as atheists or Jews. So guess where the energy gets expended...
No, that is your religious viewpoint based on drawing a line regarding where life begins, at conception or birth.
We tried your first three in 2008 and all four of them in 2012 since the Tea Party didn't exist in 2008. Since I trust you know what the definition of insanity is, how do you propose generating different results for 2014 and 2016?
I agree with that, but I believe it needs to be done state by state or by Constitutional amendment. I would happily support either initiative. I do not agree that the 14th amendment as it stands today is inherently a prohibition of abortion.
people aren't saying that you and your boyfriend can't have sex
So it sounds like you are saying that laws prohibiting sodomy between consenting adults are not appropriate. I agree with that.
we already have defined marriage, and that definition stands
I agree with that too, although I think over the long run it will be a losing cause. I would certainly vote for traditional marriage if on the ballot in my state.
you can't force homosexuality onto the military
I think that DADT was the right policy and should be reenacted.
and Boy Scouts
Yep, I agree with the Scouts' right to set their own standards.
And you will search my posting history in vain for any positions I have taken other than the above.
So what in the Sam Hill are we fighting about??
Well, if you aren’t also social conservative, then you are not truly conservative, you have already rejected the foundation of conservatism.
Why do you think that Texas endures and moves right, while California was absorbed by the left with hardly a peep, both have exactly 38.1% Hispanic populations.
California was not socially conservative, it was mushy republicanism, with no social conservative foundation.
You want to change the culture? You have to do it on the retail level, winning one heart over at a time.
And I think I have a new tagline.
This is great.
Now extend the notions of liberty and individual sovereignty to the social sphere and come to the logical conclusion that it's none of the state's business to interfere with what I do in my bedroom, what I keep in my refrigerator, my liquor cabinet, my stash, etc. As long as I'm doing no one else any harm, why should the state have any say whatsoever in how I choose to conduct my life?
I hear a lot of lofty talk from "conservatives" about liberty, individual sovereignty, etc., in everything BUT the social sphere. In that sphere, social conservatives are just as apt to apply the hammer of big government as liberals are in the social and fiscal sphere.
Both political poles in this nation argue for extensive government power to engineer the sort of society they think best. Conservatism should be about limiting the size, scope, and power of government at all levels to, oh, I don't know, allow an individual to pursue the American dream of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just as detrimental to that dream as those who'd spend our money for us and distribute our property "more equitably" are the ones who would hobble us or stab us in the back in order to save us from ourselves.
I have a son, it didn’t take religion for me to learn that life begins when he was conceived.
Anybody who thinks that he wasn’t a human until the scheduled delivery, is an idiot.
Delivery isn’t even anything particular in defining “human”, the doctor can tell me “delivery” is in August, but delivery could happen months before that, the point is, that a baby is in there, and the coming out of it, or taking it out on any given schedule, doesn’t define the baby.
You know, it's not like there are a lot of fiscal conservatives on FR who totally reject the social conservative agenda. See post 108.
I suspect that you and I are in agreement on 100% of the fiscal agenda and 90% of the social agenda (on the foreign policy agenda I don't know....I'm a strong supporter of the "no nation building - total war or stay out" concept)
So if the 10% (and I'm not sure what that might be - see post 108) gives you that much indigestion, then it's your problem, not mine, and I certainly do not feel a need to defend my conservative credentials to you.
That is a stupid tag line, by not allowing homosexuals in the military, we aren’t trying to make them virtuous, the same with the rest of it, stopping abortion saves the baby, it doesn’t necessarily change the mother to a virtuous woman, do you think marriage protection is about making homosexuals virtuous?
“The original intent of the Constitution was that the national government was supposed to be the “government of the States”, and not be involved in the day-to-day affairs of individual citizens. This produces a national government that is, at least cosmetically “libertarian”.
If that’s not acceptable to social conservatives, then they’ve effectively set themselves against anyone arguing for compliance with the original intent of the Constitution. I don’t see how that’s going to ever work for a “Constitution” party, unless it’s just going to become a label, calculated to create a perception, rather than an actual statement of purpose.”
You mistake the intent of the social conservatives, except in rare circumstances where a third party is involved (abortion), in which government must intervene on behalf of the victim, we do not seek to enforce morality with the strong arm of the government. The problem is, absent government coercion, the religious institutions must be free to spread its message regarding morals and character in the public square. Which the Government has in its encroachments on areas of education and commerce, and then subsequently removing religious influence from those areas, they have largely created a state of affairs where the religious institution are unable to get its message out in the public square, or influence culture, and you end up with a moral anarchy where none of the Libertarian advocated solutions will work.
Undisciplined people will not become disciplined just because the government is gone, they will cause havoc that will eventually have the other people call for the strong hand of government to subdue them.
Certainly you must agree that liberals do believe that people can be made virtuous via legislative enactment. If you don't believe that people can be made virtuous by government action, then you have no cause to take offence.
Can you cite some specifics? For example, I don't see any problem with a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, or a cross in the state's historic coat of arms. But I suspect you might go further than that.
Well thanks for that much - Often times it seems my libertarian FRiends would like to believe that morality has nothing to with anything.
The response I would make is: what if the people are increasingly not "moral and religious"?? Can government make them so??
And can a candidate who wants to make them so win a majority of the national electorate??
My guess is that Mr. Adams would answer in the negative on both counts.
There is a great point in that, and a point which cannot be denied. But there is also a bit of a cop-out in it too (with no offense meant):
Prior to our current liberal infection, morality was pretty much a given thing from cradle-to-grave. By far and away, folks just knew what right and wrong were... and that was taught to our children by every aspect of society, from the 10 Commandments in front of the courthouse to prayer in school (and the same can be said about patriotism)...
It wasn't left to the parents to 'turn the channel if you don't like it', as it were. There was always a seedy part of town, but that was kept out of polite society in a red-light district across the tracks.
That reinforcement of morality in every aspect of society is a very important thing. If the state and the schools are teaching something else, one can be certain that our moral fiber is under a vast assault.
And when businesses cannot exercise their religious convictions because the law says they can't, it slips even further.
And we are now to the point that the churches are being dictated to - When the churches can no longer teach the truth, it is all but gone.
So to answer you question, clinically you are right. But in actual application, removing the road blocks that the government has thrown up against morality would go a long way toward fixing things, and I do believe that this country would settle back to her moorings.
Sorry about the tag line, I mis-read it, but I doubt that you mean that as a dig at liberals, since social conservatives and social conservatism is your usual target.
Your efforts to denigrate, weaken, and marginalize social conservatives is a constant of your posting here, that is what we disagree about. Post 108 is not exactly your typical stance, and it is interesting to see you declaring that you are pro-life and support making it the law of the land.
I’m instinctually Libertarian, but my analysis of r/K makes me realize I’m one aspect of a larger K-strategy within our species. As a result, for tactical reasons, I will embrace all K-traits, to help unify the whole K-movement.
Politics is r vs K. See my profile.
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.