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 ...
Berg also was simply a weak candidate who lucked out by catching a wave in 2010 with John Hoeven at the top of the ticket. Had he run for reelection to the House, he probably would’ve won easily. Ultimately, we should’ve run Kevin Cramer instead. I expect Rep. Cramer will be the nominee against Heitkamp in ‘18 (since Gov. Dalrymple will be 70 by then, too old to start a Senate career). Shocking to realize that that particular Senate seat hasn’t elected a Republican since the maverick Wild Bill Langer in 1958.
Go vote with the dems, and stop wasting our time. TYVM.
And therein lies the problem, your brand doesn’t work.
Get off it, the tea party and conservatives are delivering historic victories while the GOPe is losing to Jimmy Carter, and you collect years worth of names to pretend otherwise.
Just about every good name in the GOP right now, came from recent conservative efforts and victories, not the GOPe branch of losers.
To quote John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Show us the numbers for that.
Akin had a great Fiscal Conservative record. The squishy moderates in the GOP helped kill his campaign by depriving it of money.
Social Conservatives need to wise up and learn how to out wit these leftwing reporters who ask about abortion. One doest have to go into detail just declare that one is pro-life
And when precepts of one conflicts with precepts of the other how is the conflict resolved?
Romney got nominated for one reason only.....the conservatives had no unity. Romney did not break 30% until his nomination became inevitable. If either Ricky or Newty dropped out, Romney loses the nomination.
Conservative is a NAME progressives gave/give to non progressives..
Conservative = same old, same old...
Progressive = forward thinking..
When non progressives use “conservative” to identify themselves..
The progressives have ALREADY WON..
They lost MEME-War...
Note: Liberals are proud of being forward-thinking EVEN if they aren’t..
Nothing as regressive as american liberal thinking..
Sad to say most all republicans have been pretty much brain washed by liberals..
Republicans are desperate to morph the word “conservative” into ((NOT MEANING))... “same old, same old”.. If they DO.. they are brain washed..
You're the one calling them "safe" ... Mr. "Macaca" Allen was "safe" bet to lose just as he did a few years earlier. Thompson was not going to win in WI, but it's not like that was an easy pick up. The rest are noise to me right now.
There was plenty of reason to believe Akin would lose when he didn't step aside and allow someone else to take his spot. Sad and frightful it may be to say, we're better off with McCaskill than someone so pompous and delusional as Akin. Mourdock was clearly stuck on stupid for not learning from Akin's rape controversy.
The Akin and Mourdock races were easy pickings and thrown away.
Now describes too many modern "conservatives." There's nothing but endless whining and spawning of conspiracy theories all to disclaim any part in a failure whether it's who gets nominated or when of their 'chosen', like Akin, is soundly defeated. In both the McCain and Romney nomination cases, conservatives had four years to produce a 'champion', their alternative to the likely nominee. It didn't happen and in the case of 2012, it was like the keystone cops ... every month there was a new choice people ran to.
Here's the thing, once again there's no GOP incumbent... these nominating elections happen EVERY FOUR YEARS. Start recruiting NOW.
I can tell you now: if Santorum's the next nominee, he will lose and "conservatives" who were so enraptured by him this past cycle will be born again critics and finally see him as he really is.
There are a few significant divisions. The social/fiscal division, even though it gets a lot of attention, isn’t it. One clue is that we talk about it all the time, and one of the easiest ways to know what’s insignificant is to listen to what people babble about the most. Here are the big splits, in my opinion:
1). Traditionalists versus libertarians. Which sounds like social versus fiscal conservatism, but isn’t.
2). Religious versus nonreligious, agnostic, or, less often, atheist.
3). Hawk versus isolationist.
Excuse me. How did the conservatives do in the last couple of elections?
You think conservatives are going to make any headway on the deficit when those same conservatives try to tell a bunch of people how to live that don't want to live that way? Hi, vote for my guy because he wants you to live the way you don't want to live.
Practical reality and the sheer evidence of U.S. social policy direction should tell you it is not working.
Social conservatives should focus on effective means to bring about the kind of social change that is necessary. Trying to do it through legislative policy sure aint working. In fact, it could not be going more quickly in the wrong direction.
What you are advocating is the equivelent of trying to move a wagon uphill by pushing the rope. You aint getting anywhere. Time to start pulling.
Or thought of another way, you don't make wine by yelling down in the bottle, Be Wine!
But all the things you mention are the consequences of adverse economic policy. If the nation coincidentally suddenly declined morally at the same time as these perverse regulations popped up, okay. But you can’t fix that through politics. What you can do is curtail the bad behavior underwritten by the state.
I didn’t say safe as in a 100% sure bet to win, but safe in that the establishment assured us were non-controversial picks. We hear nothing but Akin this and Mourdock that and never about any of the other races with one of those aforementioned “safe” candidates. They all blew their races for one reason or another. This singling out of 2 Tea Party candidates when all those others lost, too, is absurd.
To say Thompson was not going to win in WI early on was silly. The Democrat was a crazy butch lesbian moonbat from Madistan, not exactly a mainstream candidate by any stretch. She had never won statewide. But, again, Thompson was the “safe” candidate to run, somebody whom had won 4 times statewide.
To address Allen, that “macaca” comment was way back in 2006, not a “few years” ago. He was either ahead of or tied Tim Kaine in the polls for quite some time in 2012, yet he failed to win (and this time around, you couldn’t blame “macaca”). A lot of individuals on our side ran bad or bland candidacies that failed to inspire. My entire point here is that a lot of these “safe” candidates that the establishment insisted we run still couldn’t win. So, again, why should we go after Akin & Mourdock with double barrels when so many others failed to deliver winnable seats ? I think it’s an excuse to knock Tea Party candidates when the establishment’s record is much worse (look at their epic fail disastrous Presidential nominees of the past two cycles... Conservatives/Tea Partiers need not apply).
Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. Our problem is big government. Social leftism starts with federal involvement in social issues like the safety net and schools. Can the author truly believe that local school boards and private charity lead to social leftism?
One of the reasons, if not the main reason, the vast majority of citizens are immoral and don’t restrain themselves, if they in fact are, is because of social engineering by the government. You’re not going to solve it without taking away policies which create and support it. Then, when people are on their own, you can have a Great Awakening, or whatever.
I don’t think a person who doesn’t think people would be better on their own—that is, without nanny government—when they must be responsible or die, is actually a conservative. No matter how incapable the people appear at present of achieving anything beyond overriding or starving to death within a couple months.
I think they do, only on a smaller scale.
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.