Thanks for your very thoughtful reply.
_________
” - - - As to the social issues, there is no question that we are opening ourselves to real and substantial dangers, - - - “
Your reply has many topics, so I will start with a discussion based on your above quote.
I will make the following assumptions:
1.) The primary goal of any Federal Politician is to be re-elected for as many times as possible.
2.) A secondary goal of any Federal Politician is to vote as a block to support the leaders of his or her Political Party.
Discussion: Based on the above assumptions, I derive that the Federal Politician seeks out the following:
a.) topics that have maximum chaos;
b.) the most unresolvable problems;
c.) the most emotional topics;
d.) the problems that lawyers are the least qualified to solve;
c.) and problems that have the least to do with the basic functions of governing.
For example, Zipper-Boy Clinton chose as his maximum chaos topic that of “The National Problem of Teenage Smoking.” Teenagers are hard-wired to rebel, parents are hard-wired to protect, and inhaled smoke will always damage human lungs. Thus, for generations to infinity Federal Politicians have a campaign topic that they can chose sides on depending on whatever the emotions are of the audience at hand.
The above example satisfies all of the criteria listed above, and additionally the problem can never be solved.
Problems that have the intent of malice are becoming more and more common as Federal Politicians keep searching for the ultimate topic that will bring them complete job security for the rest of their lives and their descendants career lives as well.
Health has:
A.) nothing to do with governing;
B.) disease will always be part of the human condition;
C.) and is the most personal data that is available on any given person.
Thus, Federal Politicians ‘with malice for all’ proposed Hilly’care,’ Romney’care,’ and the ultimate: Obama’care.’
The above example of the power of a Social Issue to win elections for Federal Politicians and to exert maximum control over the entire population, requires that we learn a more effective way of excising Social Issues from the sphere is governing our Nation.
For example, IF we chose to filter ALL Social Issues through the test of Financial Stewardship, THEN we we have a viable basis to oppose or promote any given topic, especially Social Issues.
By making the finance the common denominator to all Social Issues, the Federal Politician will be held accountable for any financial impact of Social Issues that they oppose or support, and thus avoid the endless morality aspect of that Social Issue.
In summary, I am of the opinion that our Conservative Base would be more effective with fewer Social Issues, and then support or oppose the Social Issues on a financial basis.
BTW, “Savings” never appear on the financial balance of any known business in the World. We should be like them: It is either a liability or an asset, a loss or a profit.
Our job is to hold our elected Financial Stewards accountable for their actions and inactions.
_________
I Invite all FReepers to ponder all these points and join in the discussion.
It is very easy to have two monologues on FR, but oft’ times difficult to have a rational dialogue.
The intent of this dialogue is to establish a Conservative Base that is focused on what needs to be done to put America back on the right track that our sorry Federal Politicians in “both” Political Parties have kept us off of for decades.
What say all of you?
You are quite right to bring our focus on to our relationship with our politicians. Politicians are the rock stars, they are not noble people, they do not deserve our reverence. For example, the idea that we have to be so deferential to the president because of his office is dangerous. Like the conquering general returning to Rome, he needs a slave standing behind him in the chariot whispering that he is not a God. Just as important, the electorate, but especially the conservative electorate, needs to regard our politicians as are hired guns, our paladins, our litigation lawyers whose commission is to do our will. When they substitute their own career choices for our will they go renegade and become a liability to us.
In this arena The Tea Party has done us a very great service and beginning to put the fear of God into politicians who saw what happened to wayward senators like Bennett. Because Soros has such firm control of the finances for the Democrat party I believe the Democrats are far more afraid of their own kind and they are of the electorate. That is why they did not break ranks in the Senate on the health care bill. The fact that they did not face a firing squad in the next election means that we can expect Democrat politicians to be even less responsive to the will of the people and to a simple appeal to do what is right. The Democrat party has every chance of resembling the Politburo if they win another election.
Our first step as conservatives is to make politicians more frightened of us than they are of the media, The Tea Party, or the NRA.
As a second step we conservatives ought to figure out how to get control of the party finances. It is not healthy for conservatism that a Rino like Karl Rove has control over hundreds of millions of dollars.
Until now Republicans who say that we are spending too much money have been crying wolf. The electorate has no sense that we are running out of money, that was not effectively litigated by Romney in the last election. The ordinary voter has no idea of the difference between the deficit and the debt. Therefore, there is no downside to voting oneself goodies from the federal trough. Somehow, as a third step, we should make the world understand that every social program carries a cost which must be paid by some individual voter. You are indifferent about open borders? Your taxes just went up in California as a result. You think it is noble to educate illegal aliens tuition free in our state universities? Your child has to pay more and might not have been admitted. Every ying has a yang and the voter must be trained like Pavlov's dog to look for the yang of cost when he hears the ying of benefits. He must become an him and reflexively wary of the injury which accrues to him personally.
I think this is what you are driving at when you say we should make finance the common denominator of all social issues. That is not say that this will be easy because the Democrats have made very successful careers out of disengaging costs from benefits.
I am interested to read what others might have to say.
We don’t need to grind the message. We simply need to get back to the basics. Reagan ran on the basic conservative principles and won with landslides. Conservatives conserve our founding principles. Our American heritage. Freedom. Small government. We are the only country in history that truly recognizes and was founded on the principles of equality under the law and that our UNALIENABLE individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are granted to us by God Himself not man, not government, and no man or government on earth can deprive us of same without one helluva fight!!
Try removing any of the above from the platform and you will face rebellion from the conservative base.
The current lesson is: DON’T RUN RINOS!!
Historically it is: DON’T TREAD ON ME!!