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 ...
That was just wild, bizarre rambling and it didn’t make any sense, what were you trying to say?
After the past two years it should be ‘sickoflibswinning’
Is this the Palinista reunion thread?
Another one that flunked reading comprehension...
Did I write that the Republican Party should adopt the platform of the Libertarian Party? No. Did I imply it? No.
What I said was the Republican Party should reach out to Libertarians where they can, the central piece of that being proponents of small government. Sure doesn’t sound like promoting prostitution, fags, drugs, etc. But, this is still a (relatively) free country, so project all you want.
Again, I propose using STRATEGY to move ahead. I know that word is not understood by certain “conservatives”. I’m pretty sure Denny Rehberg would agree now. That 6.5% that went to the Libertarian in his Senate race would have looked better in his column, right? Or maybe it was better to lose another Senate seat. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Maybe Senators Mourdock and Akin can use your talents. Oh wait...those “Constitutionalists” also handed away two more Senate seats. Oops...
Like “JustSayNoToNannies” astutely wrote: “’Not identical to’ does not imply ‘anti.’ You FAIL.”
Go threadcrap someplace else.
Wagglebee has not posted since December 14.
Wrong as usual - the political philosophy of libertarianism predates the LP.
That's not what SoCons are attempting to do. We simply want to undo the legislative enactments that liberals have besotted America with. Enactments like gays in the military, gay marriages, abortion, and so on. But you know what? Libertarians are opposing us. Calling us big gubmint nanny-staters as they demand to know where in the Constitution is the basis for our views on porn, drugs, marriage as a federal issue and so on.
Libs (libertarians) actually fear our brand of morality being dominant in our US government as much as they fear the leftist brand. Unbelievable!
Yes. You nailed it on the point about social engineering. LBJ (our worst president ever) and his Great Society programs have done more damage to the US than anything else. But is that damage really fiscal? Sure. Billions and trillions spent in creating a Welfare State is fiscally wrong, but more than that - it is morally wrong. But yet.... libertarians continue to deny the need for morality in our government and so on we go.
Libertarians do not deny the need for morality in government. Okay, maybe they express themselves in John Stuart Mill-type language and proclaim we shouldn’t “legislate morality.” But that’s a manner of speaking. I find libertarianism to be among the most moralistic of ideologies. Probably because it can afford to be, not having to worry about the burden of command.
Certainly they believe in the moral case you make against the Great Society. They would be apt to put it in purely economic terms. But you can express moral arguments in economic terms. If you subsidize something you get more of it, including profligacy, laziness, lechery, etc.
Somewhere upthread it was noted that many in prison on marijuana possession charges are there due to violating parole.
In addition, many in prison on dope charges alone would, could and should be convicted of assualt, larceny, robbery, rape, and hundreds of other crimes that dopers often commit, but because of an overextended court system that can’t possibly prosecute and spend the time and energy to put these dangerous criminals in jail, they often take the easy way out. They convict based on the pot or the pipe the perp was carrying at the time of the arrest.
And yet - because this is common and ordinary - there are still those leftists that argue marijuana usage is of no concern to me or you.
Our prisons and our welfare roles are unable to handle the dopers we have now, yet these libs want to legalize marijuana and add to the problem?
Unbelievable!
All right, so why are you against marriage on the federal level?
Clearly anyone can see the economic benefits to the country as well as the moral bennies.
No... The liberatarian position is clear. If it ain’t in the Constitution then they oppose it. It may be morally correct, but who are we nanny-staters that dare impose our moral views on the rest of the US?
In addition, many in prison on dope charges alone would, could and should be convicted of assualt, larceny, robbery, rape, and hundreds of other crimes that dopers often commit,
Any evidence for the claim that dopers "often" commit these crimes?
but because of an overextended court system that can’t possibly prosecute and spend the time and energy to put these dangerous criminals in jail, they often take the easy way out. They convict based on the pot or the pipe the perp was carrying at the time of the arrest.
And yet - because this is common and ordinary - there are still those leftists that argue marijuana usage is of no concern to me or you.
Other than as a violation of parole, marijuana usage is of no concern to me or you - although assault, larceny, robbery, and rape certainly are.
Our prisons and our welfare roles are unable to handle the dopers we have now, yet these libs want to legalize marijuana and add to the problem?
If we legalize marijuana we'll subtract from the problem of prisons handling dopers. And there's no evidence that smoking marijuana puts one on welfare - although a slacker mentality can lead to both marijuana use and being on welfare.
That's not what SoCons are attempting to do. We simply want to undo the legislative enactments that liberals have besotted America with. [...] they demand to know where in the Constitution is the basis for our views on porn, drugs
Laws against porn and drugs are indeed legislative enactments. Why do SoCons support them if not to try and make men virtuous by legislative enactment?
““We could immediately lower some of our taxes if we would stop putting people in jail for personal use of marijuana and other substances. Since about half of all prisoners are in jail for crime of that type,...”
That is the exact quote I responded to. I changed the nature of nothing!
Another one of your posts that doesn’t make any sense, what were you trying to say?
My niece’s boyfriend is in prison right now for drugs but the last thing he was caught doing? Stuffing his best friends body into the back of an SUV. Seems that he overdosed and boyfriend panicked.
I just finished reading a bio of Pat Buchanan. In 1999, when he was thinking about running for president (again), he and his sister, who ran his campaigns, were invited to lunch by a congressman from Utah, representing the GOP establishment. This congressman told Buchanan we think it's great you want to run, but under no circumstances go after George W. Bush; he's going to be the nominee. The guy said the money had been lined up and they had a timetable for victory in the primaries, and he WOULD be the one.
Buchanan's sister asked where Bush stood on the issues, and the response was, "It doesn't matter." Later she remarked that it was impossible to tell people their primary votes would matter because the whole thing was fixed.
Lately I’ve noticed a few voices carefully putting forth the idea that it might be time to drop certain social issues to win elections. I wonder if the memo has gone out from the GOP, and if those voices are going to increase as time goes on.
It started before the election, and it’s getting louder.
There are three groups doing it, or four; depending on how you look at it.
1. GOP elitists who want all the social leftist crap.
2. Regular ol’ leftists who want to push the R party to the left.
3. Homosexuals who want to advance the homo agenda (could also be part of 1 or 2).
4. Libertarians, many on this thread. I will try to reply to them later although it is always a pointless waste of time. Libertarians are nothing bu the ultra kook anarchy fringe of the left.
Those groups sound about right to me....
Thanks for that site. Never seen it before!
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.