I have read this, and your subsequent posts in this thread, and I commend you on your calm and deliberative approach to this discussion. I believe I can understand your unease at the ongoing melee, but I also believe your worries will prove to be unfounded.
That said, there's a question I've been wanting to address to you since your initial comment above: "Are you aware of the logical contradiction of the two positions?"
If you are politically conservative, and yet vote to put social liberals in charge of government, how do you expect to pay for all the liberal government programs which will inevitably ensue without violating your "politically conservative" principles? And if you put conservatives in charge, you will by definition have to deny your socially liberal companions the government programs they will demand.
This is not an attempt to slam you. I simply wanted to know how you have managed to reconcile espousing these contradictory positions.
There is a term, with a corresponding set of principles, which does satisfy the conditions of what I believe you're aiming for: "Classical Liberal". There are still a few of us around. I believe if you research this you will find it a more appropriate and comfortable appellation.
Actually, I would argue that there is no conflict between the two, that actually being politically conservative *requires* social liberalism. I would argue that the conflict is the other way around, being socially 'conservative' means you want govt intervention in private, social matters.
:-D
Cuz to me, 'politically conservative' means 'I believe in a conservative use of govt power'. Careful. Common sense. Like 'I spend conservatively'.
I think gays should be treated just like anyone else. I don't think govt should be sanctioning any marriages, but if it does, people should be able to marry any other human being they want. There should be no 'vice' laws, people should be free to do what they want until they harm others.
Libertarians are 'political conservatives' to the extreme. Unfortunately, libertarians also believe in other things like the non-initiation of force, which I do NOT believe in.
So I'm no libertarian either.
I'm just some wierd guy on the net with his own wierd opinions. :-D
"I have always thought that one of the phoniest claims in California politics is that 'I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal,' which always invites the question: 'How do you plan to pay for your socially liberal programs with your fiscally conservative policies?'"
Squaring that philosophy with the Constitution is also an impossible endeavor.
Excellent point, tarheel. I think Dominic will find he can't reconcile his contradictory positions, though I'm willing to watch him try.
Your politeness does you credit, Dominic.