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 ...
“Anyone whining about narrow minded, fanatical, bigoted etc social conservatives who need to shut up should be handed this article and asked to refute it point by point. Of course they won’t be able to.”
Agreed. I think the fiscal liberalism/statism may the punishment for the social liberalism/cultural marxism. It’s certainly the natural consequence of it.
i’ve been to visit their monastary in New Hampshire many times. it’s family oriented, like an active parish. Good points and not so good.
They attract a few theological odd-balls. They still call themselves Feeneyites.
A good way of thinking about Palin is like a hot prospect in (pick a sport) that did. not. work. out.
Tebow, let’s call her Tebow. Though that’s kinda unfair to Tebow cause he WANTS to play. Sarah does not want to run for President.
Rand Paul I don’t trust because....he’s a Paulite, it’s hard to trust any of them, the pols or their supporters who are dumb as hell (and I say that as someone with strong libertarian tendencies). All over the internet I see them bitching about how the GOP “shafted” “Dr. Paul” and claiming he would have won (Bull, that racial stuff alone would have destroyed him). There is a lot of personality cult stuff going on.
Attracting those voters though is important.
Rand showed himself to be rather amateur in a few interviews (cause he was an amateur), maybe he’s improved since then.
Problem for him, his seat is up in 2016.
Veep material? Maybe.
As I’ve said before I think Walker is the man who should be President. I hope he’s interested. Rand Paul I’m sure, is. Rand’s possible future is the only reason Ron didn’t leave the party and run as an independent.
McCain gave bush a pretty good run for it in 2000
That was addressed in the book as well, as window dressing to show the voters the “vitality” of the Republican party. True? I guess it’s debatable. But considering the shenanigans the GOP pulled this past primary season, I have very little trouble believing it.
FR founder/owner Jim Robinson calls libertarians "our good friends".
They aren’t good friends of the Constitution. The LP has nothing to do with Constitutional principles or governance. All the ones I have ever discussed with use duplicity and weasal words in order to avoid being specific with what they actually believe.
And anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian, large L or small, should be honest and declare truthfully if they agree with or disagree with the official LP platform.
Your turn.
PS - that article is from 2003, I don’t know if the LP was open yet about their platform of immoral depravity.
What unconstitutional policies do libertarians, or the LP, support?
And anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian, large L or small, should be honest and declare truthfully if they agree with or disagree with the official LP platform.
I don't call myself either, but I disagree with several elements of the LP platform.
that article is from 2003, I don’t know if the LP was open yet about their platform of immoral depravity.
Here's your chance to find out: the Feb. 12 2003 version of the LP platform is at http://web.archive.org/web/20030212164002/http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html.
Immigration We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality and welcome all refugees to our country.
Must have them drugs! There's a lot more about legalizing all drugs but anyone who wants to find it can easily.
The War on Drugs is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order, and to peace in the world.
Pro abotion, as I noted above. There can be people of "good faith" who want unborn babies killed??!
Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.
Not enough prostitution - gotta take away that nasty stigma - what a great way for daughters, sisters and mothers - heck, and wives - it would be legal - to make good honest money!!! Oh - or brothers, sons, fathers as well. Take away all nasty stigmas!
the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation,
Here's the pro-homo stuff, they spelled it out a lot more clearly a few years later and explicity supported HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY, FAG MARRIAGE, FAG ADOPTION AND FOSTERING OF CHILDREN!
and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;
Of course in a really "free" society there should be no laws whatsoever limiting pornography in the slightest:
the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards";
Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;
Oh cute - more gambling, too!
the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting gambling;
Not enough suicides! Gotta have more people offing themselves - and the below would also obviously make it legal to "help" people do something legal!
the repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his or her own life.
Their pro-illegal immigration stance is so insane I must copy the whole thing (BTW their webiste is extremely repetitive and redudant):
Immigration
We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Libertarianism equates license and tacit legal support of every vice to equal freedom. They are wrong. And Libertarians, large L or small, who believe in and espouse the LP platform have no understanding of human nature or the meaning of the Constitution.
And to make it very simple and clear, here are the parts of the LP that I pointed out above that make it an insane political philosophy:
Pro Abortion
Pro all drugs
Pro legalized prostituion
Pro no holds barred pornography
Pro all homo-agenda (not stated clearly in 2002 but was made clear a few years later)
Pro open borders with everyone from any country (and any "orientation") welcomed to the US with open arms, without any restrictions or oversight.
So why don't the "social" conservatives conversely need the "fiscal" conservatives?
Why don’t you ask him if he supports the LP party platform, if you really want to know his views.
Open borders
Open immigration to any swinging richard and his four wives who want to sashay over the (non-existent) border
100% of the radical homo agenda
Legalizing all drugs
Legal abortion
Legalizing prostitution
No holds barred porn
Why, because that was never in question, red-herring-monger - Jim has repeatedly made clear his vigorous opposition to a number of LP planks. The question is whether despite those differences libertarians are, as Jim said, "our good friends" who "have some pretty good ideas about constitutionality, freedom, Liberty, etc." - or if they are, as you claimed, "nothing but the ultra kook anarchy fringe of the left."
The LP party platform and those who adhere to it are indeed the ultra kook anarchy fringe of the hard left.
And those who vote LP are spoilers and make it so Dems win.
The LP party platform and those who adhere to it are indeed the ultra kook anarchy fringe of the hard left.
So are you acknowledging that one can be a libertarian and not adhere to the LP party platform? Or are you saying we should believe you rather than Jim?
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.