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 think what most of them mean is if you push the Republican Party to nominate a Social Liberal/Social Libertarian, you will be helping the Liberal movement. Clearly, Romney and McCain were both weak on SoCon issues, and it does hurt, in motivation and turnout.
The minority of Libertarians are the way they are because of Aspie analysis. The majority of SoCons are the way they are because of immutable, K-selected instinct. One can adjust to realities of poltiics, and the other is a reality of politics. It seems silly to expect the majority, which is innately immutable, to change for a minority, which should be innately more adaptable.
As I said, I am instinctually Libertarian, and ten years ago, I would have been on here arguing for drug legalization, and saying why not allow prostitution?
But I now realize, those aren’t real world options, no matter how eloquent the argument you can produce for them. Most of the arch Libertarian social stuff will never be enacted, even if it is easily jusitifiable, logically. The real world option is either join with SoCons, and push a candidate they overwhelmingly embrace to the top, or let the leftists take over. Freedom, or a dictatorship by the laziest of the leaches.
I just hate leftists too much, so I’m wholly on board with the Social Conservatives, even if my instincts pull elsewhere (and have no illusion, all ideology is instinct). The question is, is it too late for the rest of the Libertarian movement to get on board?
All right ... three requests, no answer. “Because your way is wrong” doesn’t answer my question as to why your way is right.
You’ve advocated a position that I’ll gladly take at face value. But if I’m going to take that position as my own, I’d like to know why you think it would work. You can’t even give me that despite multiple requests. So why stay in the party?
Have a great day. Thanks for the conversation.
Now that you have suddenly become a pro-life social conservative, what is there to argue about.
You now recognize that the most conservative voters in America are the religious Evangelicals and the most liberal, are the anti-God atheists.
Sorry, I thought that you were libertarian, meaning left wing on social issues.
If you are a conservative, then forgive me.
Ben Franklin said they had given us "A republic, if you can keep it." I'm trying to keep it, and conserve to the original intent of the Constitution. If you have to put labels on it, I'm neither social nor fiscal conservative, but fundamentalist coservative. I'm trying to conserve the fundamentals.
Well, that’s nice, I know the hard left agenda of the libertarians, they have managed to get much of it into place over the last 60 years, and America is doomed because of it.
And they did it through abuses of federal power, outside the original intent of the Constitution, didn't they?
No they did it at all levels, just as we should be fighting abortion, and the homosexual agenda, at all levels, like we fought to protect marriage in the mid 1800s.
Are you denying they've abused federal authority to advance thier agenda?
I’m not terribly interested in how you want to push the left’s anti-conservative agenda, I do recognize that you share their positions on social issues.
I support human life, and that means protection at every level.
KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle had this as his tagline.
(”If you’re not fiscally AND socially conservative, you’re not conservative!” - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
That begs the question, which I have asked you in the past, what are you doing here on Free Republic, trying to separate conservatives from their conservative beliefs? Such a thing is not conservative. In fact, it is trolling.
??? I am neither doing, nor attempting to do, any such thing. Your question, therefore, is nonsensical.
And you’ll recall that I’ve told you if you think I’m abusing the forum and don’t belong here, the push the abuse button, and let the moderators sort it out. I don’t owe you any explanations.
As long as you do that within the original intent of the enumerated powers of the governments involved, we don't have any disagreement. Now, why are you arguing about it?
They’re really the same thing. Peel back the mask of a ‘social liberal / fiscal conservative’ and you’ll find a fiscal liberal.
Sorry to be unclear, Kent. I was posting the question to tacticalogic, an anti-christian liberal and cc’ing you because I mentioned you.
Don’t worry, conservatives follow the constitution, so you can relax and become a conservative too.
Join us in fighting for social conservatism, not against it.
I am. I can’t help it if you don’t like the way I’m doing it. Push the abuse button, or get over it.
Libertarians are agents of the left, using a different vocabulary.
D’OH!!! ;) My Bad, then. Sorry, sorry.
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.