Posted on 11/09/2010 9:48:47 PM PST by RobinMasters
That’s the money line from tonight’s Fox News “12 in ’12″ presidential profile; skip ahead to 3:00 if you don’t want to watch it all. He made this same point, albeit in a more elaborate way, at the Values Voter Summit in September. Let me gently suggest that this bumper-sticker version is doing him no favors, since it can’t help but alienate every last libertarian who sees it.
His idea, as explained in greater detail at the VVS, is that God and government are forever jockeying for position as moral beacons in the public’s imagination. The bigger government gets, the smaller God gets, and vice versa, so if you’re eager to shrink state bureaucracy and promote self-reliance, expect people to react by looking elsewhere for moral guidance — like, say, back to traditional Judeo-Christian values.
Thus are all fiscal cons also social cons, whether wittingly or not. And in fairness, that idea isn’t completely out of left field: There is indeed a relationship between God and government in the average person’s mind, although the touchstone is security, not morality.
The less stable a government is, apparently, the more one turns to faith for reassurance that everything will be okay. The universe requires order and one or the other will provide it psychologically.
(The U.S. is a notable exception to the either/or rule.) Which makes me wonder, how many fiscal cons support shrinking government because it means greater freedom for its own sake and how many support it simply as a means of moving people over to a different security blanket that they prefer?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
He’s gearing up to run.
Uh oh. Before I start to read this article, I see that it’s written by that jerk allahpundit.
He has a point. You can’t advocate social mores that stress government budgets at all levels, and claim to be fiscally conservative.
DeMit speaks the truth, IMHO
This sounds like a lot of the stuff that Farah been spewing lately; basically trying to morph the Tea Party into a huge evangelical religious revival.
I hope they fail, because otherwise the Tea Party fails.
The difference between a libertarian and a liberal is that the libertarian wants the right to sell drugs and the liberal wants use them and have the government pay for them.
He is right, they can not be separated.
If Jim DeMint actually said it then I disagree with him.
Chris Christie is an obvious refutation.
Sarah Palin would never say anything that dumb, so maybe she’s a better 2012 candidate than Jim DeMint.
I thought that was Beck trying to do that.
No, it not about passing laws that compel moral behavior, but it is about advocating a strong moral message.
A morally disordered people results in a disordered society that requires a strong government to come in and maintain order.
The best way to ensure a small government with few regulations is to have a society of mostly moral and responsible people.
That is something I say a lot.
Nothing is more fiscally conservative than social conservatism.
I would put it this way: if you’re a fiscal conservative, then you’re also a social conservative whether you know it or not.
Chris Christie is 100% pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-school vouchers, and anti-euthanasia & anti-embryonic stem cell research, in addition to being a fiscal conservative.
Try again.
How's that? Christie used his fiscal conservatism to support his social conservatism by cutting Planned Parenthood out of the NJ State budget.
Just as John Adams said was required.
We’ll say it this way:
If one is merely a fiscal conservative and believes the country will fare well without social conservatism to go along with it, then eventually his fiscal conservatism will fail him and the country.
BUMP
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.