Posted on 01/21/2013 9:48:38 PM PST by ReformationFan
For some years now, we have been told about a major division within American conservatism: fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives.
This division is hurting conservatism and hurting America -- because the survival of American values depends on both fiscal and social conservatism. Furthermore, the division is logically and morally untenable. A conservative conserves all American values, not just economic ones.
By "social conservatism," I am referring to the second and third components of what I call the American Trinity -- liberty, "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum."
It is worth noting that a similar bifurcation does not exist on the left. One never hears the term "fiscal liberals." Why not? Because those who consider themselves liberals are liberal across the board -- fiscally and socially.
The left understands that values are a package. Apparently, many conservatives -- libertarians, for example -- do not. They think that we can sustain liberty while ignoring God and religion and ignoring American nationalism and exceptionalism.
It is true that small government and liberty are at the heart of the American experiment. But they are dependent on two other values: a God-based religious vigor in the society and the melting pot ideal.
Or, to put it another way, small government and fiscal conservatism will not survive the victory of social leftism.
The Founding Fathers made clear that liberty is dependent upon not only small government but also society's affirming God-based values. Not having imbibed the Enlightenment foolishness that people are basically good, the founders understood that in order for a society to prosper without big government, its citizens have to hold themselves accountable to something other than -- higher than -- the brute force of the state. That something is God and the Judeo-Christian religions that are its vehicle.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Which conservative in the GOP leadership were you referring to, that is losing?
The current GOPe is really the shadow team for Democratic Progressiveism. They lost because there was little difference in the fake conservative and the Progressives they were running against. There were two Socons that suffered from foot in mouth syndrome, but there were al least seven pretend conservatives that also lost.
The national government was intended to be the “government of the States”, and not involve itself in the day-to-day affairs of individual citizens. That makes a national government operating within the original intent of the Constitution effectively libertarian. The “social conservatives” seem either unwilling or unable to recognize and maintain that distinction.
I don't think I said that. I think I said that we should not blame God for our troubles.
The troubles we face are not the result of SoCons but many here would have us abandon God because He is not in favor of Gay rights and Abortion, which costs us the stupid women voter.
How is that libertarian party working out for you?
You might say pretty good, but remember that actually it was the democrats which gave the libertarians most of their victories over the last 50 years.
The GOP needs two strong conservative candidates declared and before the public prior to Iowa, with an agreement between the two that the loser drops out to unify the base. I know, as long as I'm dreaming I'd like a pony too, but the idea would be to have a unified, base-friendly candidate to take on the Christies and Jeb Bushes of the world. I don't see any other way to field a conservative candidate at a time when the Republic will need one more than ever.
This last election cycle, I voted for conservatives only and if the GOP wants my vote they will need to earn it by nominating a candidate acceptable to the base.
How are libertarians "anti-God"?
If you are a religious person, can you link me to some threads showing that?
Are you evading the issue by asking me for threads showing I'm a religious person? (Or have I misparsed your question?)
As for proof, I know enough prison guards that have long ago debunked the liberaltarian BS about people thrown in prison for nothing but a little pot.
Wasting time on obsessed drug trolls doesn’t interest me much.
On which the law enforcement system has already had its say - so how is it relevant to their having pot for personal use?
and likely were busted for probation violations.
Have any evidence that this is likely (rather than merely possible)?
Don't break up a quote and pretend that it wasn't all in the same sentence.
How did I "pretend" that? The first part ends with a comma and the second part begins with a lowercase letter - I left it quite clear that they were all in the same sentence.
As for proof, I know enough prison guards that have long ago debunked the liberaltarian BS about people thrown in prison for nothing but a little pot.
Unless you randomly selected the prison guards you know, their observations can't be reliably extrapolated to the prison population at large.
Wasting time on obsessed drug trolls doesn’t interest me much.
But wasting time on arguing ad hominem does interest you. Got it.
"Not identical to" does not imply "anti." You FAIL.
One of Dems favorite sayings is ‘Dont let the perfect be the enemy of good’ when discussing getting their agenda passed.
So in 2007 the Pelosi House funded the surge, how ya think those House libs liked that?
Then in 2010 the Pelosi House extended ALL the tax cuts for 2 years, ya think they liked doing that?
But ya see Dems plan ahead. Pelosi was not going to blow 2008 by taking some losing stand even if that is what many of her members wanted. She ruled the House as Speaker.
That is how they got O-care passed and repeal of DADT, and O-care mandated BC. You see they care about end results not symbolism and they do it as a team not a bunch of individuals expressing themselves as the ship sinks.
One side fights to win, one side wins.
You seem to have mistaken me for someone who has claimed that there are prisoners who are there for just smoking pot. In fact, YOU'RE the one who's made a claim - and failed to provide any valid evidence.
The one Republican who makes me take notice and say ‘wow’ is Scott Walker. I never seen anything like what he did in WI. He not only is clever and tough and has guts but he has a look like he could be a competitive POTUS candidate (he is no Christie).
But if he has any common sense he will stay away from the national Republican party, They are a mess.
Like you went out there and convinced Palin to run?
HA-HA
Pot regulation is the same as Alcohol regulation, and is working exactly as well as Prohibition.
You can be ‘conservative’ enough in your own personal behavior to be against being an alcoholic, but still want the government to stay out of controlling alcohol.
Similarly the government should stay out of controlling pot. There is way too much money spent on fighting this war on drugs which drives up its cost, which leads full circle to more criminal involvement because there is (illegal) money to be made.
That, to me, is more socially conservative - not in BEHAVIOR but in laws. Take away the laws and you take away the cost and the incentive to go into that business.
Conservatism is less government all around. This should be a state or local issue, if they choose to regulate it.
No, someone else said half the prisons were full of people that were just smoking dope. That is BS.
You questioned the fact that it is BS. I’m done with your snarky troll ass.
Agree on Walker. Living in a state with arguably the dumbest governor in the United States, I marvel at what he has done.
The national party would have little interest in Walker, though. Far too conservative for their tastes.
That was a weird post
Rather than working to move conservatives left, you should be devoting your efforts to persuading social liberals to turn against their democrat party and join us conservatives.
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.