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 ...
“It’s that the establishment will insist on coronating that Zero bootlicking fat tub of $hit from New Jersey, Christie.”
I liked that so much, I just had to post it again.
But really fun was the Morning Joe's comments Monday going into an absolute fit that Cruz would dare accuse Obama of using those kids deaths for political purposes(on the same MTP show_), that was entertaining, Mika is so proud of him. Great morning laugh.
Like I said in another comment, there seemed to be a delusional belief with Rs that 2012 would just be another 2010 easy win because only Republicans would vote.
What was missed maybe because so many are trapped in the bubble was that O and Dems were using all of it to turn out their vote, that 2012 was not a natural 2010.
Pathetically Angle even lost 2010.
A 30 state strategy is OK, but its the 20 state that is a loser.
I don’t think Socrates was a Christian, so what is your point again?
And economic conservatives need to stop nominating people like Romney who have no credibility on social issues, due to capitulations on so-called gay marriage and abortion.
Plenty of blame all around.
I was one of the few here to point out that Romney’s economic conservative message would not be found inspiring outside the GOP bubble, and it wasnt and isnt.
He was the last person I would have picked to argue for ‘tax cuts’.
I thought Romney worked well with the others I cited to blow the election, to turn out the Dem vote.
Many Republicans seemed to believe that 2012 would just be another 2010 and wouldnt require planning, skill or self control, then woke up surprised in Nov. The Dems stayed on message all neg against Rs ('they will take away your ...') and the Rs just all went their own ways own messages.
Daveinyork: “And how would you propose to choose those virtuous individuals who would manage that large government that will force us all to be virtuous?”
Your response is typical of the libertarians on this thread. Point out where I or other social conservatives are advocating big government to “force us all to be virtuous.” I’m only pointing out it’s impossible to have small government when the vast majority of citizens are not virtuous.
I’m not calling for federal dictates to force them to behave. However, that doesn’t mean all levels of government need to turn a blind eye to social ills. For example, support for marriage would be a good start. Letting communities set their own standards would be another. Eliminating programs that subsidize immoral behavior would be a biggie.
You seem to think socons are ready to break down your door to see if you’re watching porn or smoking a bit of weed. That’s not necessarily true. Some might, but most of the ones I know just want government to stop siding with the cultural barbarians.
That's an interesting way of looking at the divide. I think, you're correct.
Not many candidates, or people even.. are on the same side of all three of those.
One thing I DO know: Republicans CANNOT win without full-throated support from BOTH sides. Seems to me, the Social Conservatives are the ones who've shown they are most likely to "stay home".. since, they are voting on 'principle', not simply 'interests'.
Problem is... they rarely get candidates that truly support their positions.
And, anyway... what ARE their positions? Personal? Or, do they require a government mandate for their personal beliefs?
“Point out where I or other social conservatives are advocating big government to “force us all to be virtuous.” I’m only pointing out it’s impossible to have small government when the vast majority of citizens are not virtuous.”
What would you have this medium sized government do about the unvirtuous? I say “medium sized” because you said you don’t advocate big government, and you say that it’s impossible to have a small government. The only other choices are medium sized, or none at all. Surely you don’t advocate anarchy, do you?
imagine a group of libertarian, grass-roots militias taking on the Nazi war machine. You cannot. Nazis could only be defeated by a similar organized, central-command modern military. Similarly, where is the leadership of the conservative establishment?
Fact is, the grassroots right has boycotted the presidential primaries since Buchanan’s brief surge in ‘96. Which was lead by delusional incompetents.
Bush coopted the grassroots in 2000. My error, of course, is that I have ignored the Paulista crowd. In rural NH and ME, the backbone of the anti-RINO resistance up here, the Paulistas soak up all the energy ... earning the support of people who normally support Conservative Regulars. Many McCain ‘08 rural folks in the NH primary (who led the charge against Romney in ‘08) ended up with Ron Paul in ‘12 ... (as strange as that may sound).
There is so much national party control over local events in the process that Presidential politics has ceased to be interesting to me.
Names for ‘16: Rand Paul. Sarah. Walker. The only conservative grassroots who will play ball early are the Evangelicals in Iowa and the Paulistas in New Hampshire and NV. And then Dr. Dobson can go to SC to tell everyone that he is uncommitted.
God have mercy on us. The UBSA. The United Bankrupt States of America.
As soon as RINOs learn to stop nominating liberals like Mitt Romney, who give away easy wins against the worst President in American History, or at least teach them that they must not help Marxists by refusing to go on the offensive against them.
The R primary was another mess so Romney had little trouble picking them off one by one to get it.
And Romney played uber-conservative in the primary.
But Romney was not responsible for the Rs losing seats in both Houses. The GOP had bigger problems than that.
Romney was not responsible for Angle losing to Reid 2010. That was an unnecessary disaster.
I noticed the talk radio club warmed up to Romney.
Again with Sarah Palin.
And again, I say: “You outta you mind.” NEVER...GONNA...HAPPEN. EVER.
Scott Walker or Rande Paul? Now you’re talking.
The Paulistas should be welcomed and not shunned on the whole. Why? Libertarians should be at home in the GOP. Libertarians (emphasis on the “Liberty”) are not statists, unlike the RATS.
That should serve as a (the) overwhelming commonality between Conservatives and Libertarians.
Akin was the result of a three way split, Palin and the tea party didn’t succeed in defeating him in the primary, and Palin couldn’t persuade him to drop out after his awkward missteps.
The conservatives have been delivering the only positive news in the GOP in recent elections, doing great, while the GOPe keeps finding disasters in their efforts.
While conservatives were giving us Cruz and a our only Senate seat pickup, Rove was sucking up hundreds of millions of GOP dollars towards creating losing candidates.
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)?
Really, just end conservatism and become lefties and stop fighting the left, that is the GOP that you envision?
Become anti-God, anti-conservatism democrats, except keep conservative economics?
Become more Romney like?
What do I want? Well I hope more individuals would get their heads screwed on right, make peace with God, and stop destroying the country. I don’t think that’s likely to occur, but that’s my great hope.
When I said we couldn’t have small government with immoral citizens, I was simply stating fact. That doesn’t mean I, personally, don’t want small government. I do. I just don’t think we’re ever going to return to anything like that, because most Americans today are immoral. Government is their god.
It’s going to have to come crashing down before anything can change, and that crash is going to be bad for everyone. If a new American republic rises from the ashes, a highly improbable outcome, a whole lot of Americans will end up dying before it does. We’re more likely to end up with a truly totalitarian state. I hope for a softer landing, a gradual decline versus a crash, but I doubt we’ll get one.
You see, you’re confusing my hopes with my observations. I hope for the best. I observe we aren’t likely to get anything like it. Neither are libertarians. Both of our hopes are foolish given the reality. Look at the joker who was just sworn in for another four. Does that look like a country headed toward much smaller government?
You are right of course.
Romney has damaged the GOP deeply, he may have broken it.
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.