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?
Good piece.
Many here view politics through the end of a toilet paper roll. They can’t see most of reality.
Well I would start with school choice, religious people should not be forced to pay taxes to support public school that insist on a completely secular edition.
I was pro-abortion almost all of my life, and even now oppose it primarily in hopes of unifying the Conservative movement (I'm not emotionally driven to Social Conservatism, it is purely an intellectual drive).
My take is the Anti-Abortion crowd is just highly K-selected. The more you head, on the r/K scale, towards K, the higher the investment in offspring. Go r, and offspring are created en masse with a subconscious acceptance they are all expendable. Head towards K and you begin with low-investment single parenting, and gradually increase investment through two-parent, high-investment families, and to the point where the fetus is sacrosanct. It is very probably an instinctual drive to view the young as priceless. It's not religious for the vast majority.
I've never seen a proposition to regulate sexual practice. Pick the most Conservative Presidential candidate in the last fifty years, and you won't see that. It comes down to not supporting Homosexuality, which is probably an overexpression of the Liberal's genetically predisposed, more r-psychology and neurobiology. To that extent, preventing open support among the populace for gays probably keeps r at bay, and preserves freedom in a way that Libertarianism would ultimately surrender it.
There is no path to a Libertarian paradise (even if there was, the support for r-mating strategies inherent to Libertarianism would gradually give support to a rise in r-type Liberals which would take you to the Marxist system exactly the same as an embrace of r, just slower.)
Libertarians are great in theory, but they are poorly designed as a sustainable reproductive strategy in the r/K mold (because they take no measures to limit the r-type's proliferation). As a result, they can only exist in a Conservative, highly K-state, which keeps the r's in check for them.
I'm telling you, Libertarianism is about being Samson, and deciding either you get everything, or you try to take the whole temple down, by taking your 1% and going home.
In today's elections, you either align with Social Conservatives, and have a chance at seeing a free market economy, and a limited government, or you don't and see America give way to an increasingly Marxist Obamaland, ending in a full economic collapse, and Argentinian-type chaos.
If you try to see this reality through the foggy humanistic lense of the old soft sciences, you get wrapped up in human contructs and philosophies which muddy the waters. If you look at humans like any other species, and assume r/K reproducitve strategies play out the same, it is as clear as day.
I explain it to you this way, in this hyper technical fashion, because I asume as a Libertarian, you have Aspie tendencies (like me), and this will make sense to you, in a mechanistic way. There is only one way forward, and that is to appeal to the Libertarians to put away their knives, join with the Social Conservatives without reservations, and then all go forward to destroy Liberalism. (I'd propose the opposite, but it's never going to happen - K-instincts are just too strong.) Once Liberalism is on it's ass, wondering what happened, we can all go back to fighting with each other. Until then, our arguments are all over moot points, as the Communist state advances.
I am very much a fiscal conservative. In fact I think it is social conservatism that is making it hard for republicans to win elections.
In fact I think it is social conservatism that is making it hard for republicans to win elections.
May I ask, do you think a thing called "gay marriage," or something called "gay rights," should be the law of the land? Do you think you should pay for someone else abortion? Do you think abortion is a violation of the baby's rights? Do you think that Christianity or the Bible should be outlawed, or that Christians (don't even consider muslims) should have the right to practice their religion? Do you think the government should be able to force you to buy a product? Do you think that the government should force you to buy someone's contraceptives...their phones, or their food?
Let me know what you think.
5.56mm
I agree with most of what social conservatives want, and my posting history should you ever be inclined to read it would back that up.
But I don't suffer socons who insist that their exact set of views is the Only True Conservatism, still less do I put up with anyone (you may not be one of these) who insists that I can't be a conservative if I don't follow their religious doctrine.
I would beg to differ.
How does one suggest that the protection of Life (an enumerated and God-given right) is not the purpose of the Federal government? It is the very first enumerated purpose for our government's very existence.
And wrt sexual practices, how does one allow a marriage in one state (a contract at it's root) without it being honored everywhere according to the state reciprocity clause? Things injected at the federal or constitutional level invariably trump the states. Do you expect Christians to just shrug off homo marriage and accept it whole cloth just because Massachusetts wants it?
I have read your posting history rather extensively, I know where you are in regards to conservatism.
You don't have to look very far on this board to find a whole lot of posts which basically amount to:
"You libertarians are all stoners. And hippies. And you like pedophiles. And terrorists. Please, just go away, and don't pretend to be conservatives any more."
It seems to me that the freepers who hold this view finally got their wish on November 6. Do you agree??
What would a non-secular public school look like?
Mostly, you are upset because I occasionally say things about you and your colleagues which you find unflattering. (And it's true, they were not intended as compliments)
Yet I never called you a "liar" or accused you of destroying conservatism.
I believe that financial and social conservatives and libertarians should absolutely work together on the things we agree upon, and there are many. If we focus on the 10% or 20% where we have deep disagreement, we basically guarantee more victories for the Left.
We got some Tea Party legislators in Congress, and in the various states the Tea Party has been moderately effective in getting good people elected.
You seriously think an election-winning majority will flock to the banner of a new party? Look at the experiences of the Libertarian Party (founded 1971), Constitution Party (founded 1991), Ross Perot's Reform Party (founded 1995).
NONE of them have EVER won a federal election.
I wasn’t aware of you saying unflattering things about me, nor that I have colleagues and that you insult them, what are talking about?
Immediate success? No. However, it's fair to say that a conservative third party could start with a substantially better base then any of the others you mentioned.
I'm sure you're aware of how the Reagan Coalition was built and who comprised it. Trying to rebuild that coalition is the only hope conservatives have of having a voice on the national stage again, and the only way to eventually elect a President who can save the Republic from itself.
It's not like the Republican Party is capable of electing a President as it's presently constructed, and the people in charge of the mess at the moment are not only not ready to leave, they took steps at the last convention to consolidate their power through control of delegates.
This isn't a party that deserves to succeed. It's a party that ignores a substantial portion of its base. There is no reason to assume this will change, so let's go off the reservation and build something better. If that brings the Republican Party to the table, fine. If it doesn't ... well, it's not like November 6 was the act of a party that is capable of success.
But again, I ask you ... what does your strategy offer for 2014 and 2016 that's different? Getting 'a few' people elected isn't going to cut it either.
Should I pay for some ones else abortions? ... No.
Do you think abortion is a violation of the baby's rights?... Late term abortion ... against.
Do you think that Christianity or the Bible should be outlawed? ... No.
Should Christians have the right to practice their religion? ... Yes.
Do you think the government should be able to force you to buy a product? ... No
Do you think that the government should force you to buy someone's contraceptives...their phones, ? ... No.
or their food ... depends on the circumstance.
Like it or not the GOP is going to have to win back the middle ground. We have failed to to win the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections and it is our hard line on social issues that are causing the problems.
Welcome to FR, I don't think you'll like it among conservatives as you fight to move FR left.
Sorry, “4 month old is less viable at 7-9 months” should read ...4 month old is less viable than at 7-9 months...
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.