Posted on 08/31/2010 4:17:24 PM PDT by wagglebee
But the Founders understood the importance of morality from Christian principles that were the necessary foundation of Capitalism. They knew that immorality meant more interference from governments.
So, you have to have as your "core principles" the core that makes free enterprise work. Otherwise, it won't work and it will waste your time.
That core has to be Natural Law Theory as understood by John Locke which includes Natural Rights....like ALL THE DIVISIVE moral issues.....it is common sense. The Right to Life has got to be a part of your core principles. The right for kids to have a biological mother and father HAS GOT to be part of the core principles. Private property rights HAVE GOT TO BE part of your Core principles. THOSE ALL ARE SOCIAL ISSUES.
You CAN NOT separate social from economical. It is not humanly possible. You can NOT pretend to ignore the crucial, fundamental principles of the Constitution that made this country the best ever and possible for free enterprise. Natural Rights should be the core, because without it, your freedom can NOT exist.
Sometimes trying to go back to the time when forming a union was the goal doesn’t work.
Trying to return to our historical roots on abortion before 1973 is a part of the Republican party platform and the major goal of conservatism, at some point these people that like conservative economic policy and are attending the tea parties, have to be introduced to conservatism itself.
You can argue about the timing, but you have to agree that conservatism will at some point confront a few of the tea partiers in an unpleasant way and some will go back to the Democrat party.
There is no conservative movement without the so called “social issues”, the left has that market and those voters already cornered.
Tom, our liberty is directly proportional to the size and reach of government. Only fiscal conservatism limits the size and reach of government.
Economic issues are a vital concern; as is the growing size of the federal government and its overreaching into the lives of ordinary citizens. The overwhelming burden of excess regulation and taxation upon businesses and individuals is alarming. In the same manner, however, the killing of 1.25 million unborn children annually from abortion must be a grave concern. Accordingly, a failure by the Tea Party to incorporate the serious pro-life concerns of millions of Americans into its agenda will be fatal to achieving success.
I'm sorry, Tom. This is just plain wrong. Why in the world would a failure to make pro-life concerns -- which I support with all my heart -- a top agenda item be "fatal" to the success of the Tea Party movement?
It is quite the opposite. The success of a movement to limit government, based on fiscal conservatism, would be the greatest boon to social conservatism in our lifetime.
If the federal government were pared to its constitutionally intended reach, and, therefore, it had less power and less MONEY to FORCE morally nihlistic policies on the nation, this would allow the positive advancement of every single social cause conservatives care about.
There are three legs to a successful agenda that will change America for the better. Each leg is critical and the current grassroots movement for change in America will collapse if any of these legs is ignored.
First, there's no evidence whatsoever that "the current grassroots movement" will collapse if a pro-life agenda is not EXPLICITLY and DIRECTLY pursued.
Tom, you yourself said in this very article that many, if not most, of the Tea Party participants were committed, or at least sympathetic, to pro-life concerns. Do you really think these people are going to drop out of the movement now because its overarching focus is on limiting the size and scope of government?
Of course they aren't. They are very well aware that without imposing fiscal conservatism on Washington, this country is finished. And if this country ever actually becomes given over to Socialism/Marxism -- which, after all, are primarily economic systems -- the world will see an explosion in America in each and every thing that social conservatism opposes -- including seeing an America that officially bills itself as an atheist nation! And since Americans would be even less free than they are now, citizens would be even more powerless to protest and otherwise work to advance their cause.
Limited government and reduced taxation are at the core and are necessary to bring the nation out of the serious economic recession/depression in which we find ourselves.
Tom, you sold this "leg" short. It is the key to everything. Without limited government, this country eventually (sooner rather than later) will not be able to afford the world's best military, and will not have the political will to secure our nation anyway, since national security costs and there will be the overwhelming need to use all resources to fund entitlements in an attempt to keep civil unrest at bay.
Further, protecting the family unit and respecting life -- from what must these things be protected, Tom? From the GOVERNMENT. It is the government that has the power and authority to break down the family unit. It is the government that has the power and authority to provide abortions, force unwilling citizens to pay for them, and more and more restrict the ways in which those who contend for life can advocate for it.
such as Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, assert that the social issues (and specifically abortion and the right to life) must take a back seat to the other two legs, which are seen as more important.
NO. It is not that the right to life is less important than limiting government. It is simply that limiting government is the best, most efficient, and most potentially permanent way to allow for the advancement of social causes. Again, because limiting government increases our freedom and freedom is critical to advancing social causes and IMPLEMENTING social change.
Gov. Sarah Palin, a committed pro-life leader, was asked to name the top five issues facing the country today and the deaths of 1.25 million unborn annually from abortion was not on her list. If, indeed, this is the approach a new Congress takes after the November mid-term elections, then the agenda of the Tea Party movement will fail.
Again, where's the evidence, Tom, for your conclusion that the Tea Party movement will fail if it doesn't explicitly and directly focus on the pro-life agenda?
Are you saying God will strike it dead somehow? Are you saying that the millions of pro-lifers already participating in the Tea Party movement will drop out if the "only" results they see are dramatic limits on the power of the federal government to get in our business at every level?
Are you saying that, for example, if on the grounds of fiscal conservatism Obamacare is repealed -- and, therefore, its push for federal abortion programs and funding is scuppered -- that's not good enough because the scuppering didn't come about based on explicit pro-life concerns?
Unless this trend is stopped then, notwithstanding the impact of the Tea Party movement, our culture and nation will have effectively committed suicide.
You may well be right about that, Tom. However, that is a far cry from your claim that the Tea Party movement will fail if it makes (your view) the "fatal" mistake of not explicitly supporting the pro-life agenda.
Sir, you are conflating the ultimate fate of the nation -- which is based on some rather complex factors, I believe, not just political agendas -- with the imminent political success or failure of the Tea Party movement in its overarching push to impose fiscal conservatism on Washington and, therefore, to limit government.
These are two very different things. Whether the Tea Party movement succeeds or fails in its push for limited government determines the next chapter in our nation's history -- including the next chapter in whether we, as a people, are even FREE enough to fight for life and implement policy changes. But that is just one, and a relatively small, piece of the puzzle that makes up how long our nation stands. Simply put, it's a little over-the-top, my friend, to equate the success or failure of the Tea Party movement with the ultimate fate of the nation.
The Tea Party movement is like the surgeon whose job it is to remove the cancer (here, to limit government by reducing spending and restoring constitutionalism). That has nothing to do with the right or responsibility of other doctors to continue to care for the overall health of the patient (the nation, by advancing morally right social causes) -- including being BETTER able to help the patient become healthier because, yes, the surgeon was able to remove the cancer.
I read exactly what was written and in all of those elections I site, Abortion was far from the main issue except for Reagan possibly. It coalesced the religious right and the fiscal hawks, but Iran and the economy were first, and all that came of that election was the Mexico City policy. As for the rest of my screed, where is the problem.
I'd like to see some data on that. I'm not aware of any election in which "abortion was ignored."
Are you saying that pro-lifers are responsible for the election of every Rat administration since 1972?
No, you add that and it will fail. Right now it has support of independents, libertarians,and democrats, fiscal conservatives who worry more about their wallets than what you do with your body.
The divide is conservative/liberal, the tea party movement belongs to the conservatives, therefore, pro-life.
“The GOP has LOST every election since Roe v. Wade when abortion was ignored.”
I guess that means we know who gave us BO.
You and I must not have seen the same event, I missed that part. Can you help me out and tell me where he did that? What part of his speech or the event? I have the entire thing on my DVR, @ what time did this happen?
The event I saw was about restoring our personal honor and returning to God, starting with ourselves. This IMO was a great message, many needed to hear it. I was elated someone like Glenn Beck with the resources to do so, said it in the public forum.
I'm not being a wise-guy here, I saw the same event you did and didn't walk away with the message your espousing above. I'm also a born-again Christian, pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-marriage between a man and a woman, and a mother and father in the home raising the children together. But I'll tell you this: If the Tea Party movement loses its focus on the very narrow fiscal issues that are absolutely destroying this country and our children's future, you can kiss any chance of restoring the dignity and sanctity of human life goodbye in this country as well.
There just won't be anything left, period.
Democrats are the party of the non-religious, atheists, and the anti-social conservatives.
He is absolutely wrong.
With all due respect to the pro-life movement, if there were not a single abortion performed in 2010 we would still have two wars, still have a near-depression, still have open borders and still have a bunch of socialists trying to destroy America as quickly and as messily as they can.
I’m not the one penning an article stating that unless the TEA party drops everything and concentrates solely on abortion, that social conservatives won’t vote their way...
That is, however, the article you are defending.
It has taken hold, the problem is people like you who want to drop the issue.
When? In the last 18 months? Since that glorious day (/s)-- as you stated -- that "John McCain got his *** handed to him"?
The election of Barack Hussein Obama was all about how great it would be for the United States to have its first black president. That is all.
John McCain never mentioned abortion, he focused on "earmarks" (e.g. fiscal conservatism) and got his ass handed to him.
How many "pro-lifers" helped elect the most pro-death president and administration in history by naively refusing to vote for John McCain?
Shame on any pro-lifer who did not use his vote to vote against -- and to try to stop the election of -- the President and Party of Death. And please don't come back with the tired line that John McCain, and a McCain administration, would have been just as bad.
so I guess I should just stop going to rallies and become a liberal, give up all my other beliefs including fiscal responsibility because what happens between a woman and her doctor?
Not all pro-lifers are looking to government to do God’s work.
Some are looking for government to get the heck out of the way so that God’s people can do God’s work in society.
This requires limiting government. Period. As a practical matter, everything else, including our very liberty, is contingent upon that.
If you aren’t conservative, then don’t pretend that you are.
I agree. It’s also unnecesary.
By limiting government, we increase freedom. Then the marketplace of ideas can work as it is supposed to work, without the heavy hand of the government imposing disadvantages on one side or the other.
Are they fiscally conservative or not? If not, then I agree. If they are, then they are the heart of conservativism. For if you cut spending, then you cut down the government's ability to do anything. And if the government is restricted from doing all it can, then we have *LIBERTY*.
And that is the purest form of conservatism.
We do not need to murder the most vulnerable members of society to balance the budget.
Nope, we don't. And if we got the federal government out of this mess, then the abortion issue would return to the state and local levels. Once again, a social conservative victory created by cutting spending and reducing government. Things that this article wants the TEA party to put aside to campaign on social issues.
Alright, I call your bluff. Name a fiscally conservative tyranny. Tyranny can't exist without state force (violence). If there is no money to pay for the state force, then tyranny cannot exist without the consent of the governed.
Why because we aren't willing to sacrifice human life?
Anything is good as long as abortion is banned! No, really, ANYTHING! Forced anal goat sex on pain of death, fine... as long as abortion's banned. Turning the citizenry into slaves of the state, that's fine too! Just gimme dat old-time abortion ban!
You are an IDIOT if you believe this is what social conservatives want.
***
How in Hell's Bells is the focus on a political movement on limiting government, imposing fiscal conservatism on Washington, and increasing individual liberty (including the ability to exercise conscience and religious beliefs) equate to a "willingness to sacrifice human life?"
Good grief, friend. Get a hold of yourself. This is not a zero-sum game.
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.