More Than One ‘I’ In Coalition

The fiscally conservative, socially liberal politician is the unicorn of American politics.

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | November 17th, 2010 at 11:31 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

“It is … ridiculous for any group …to tell social conservatives to shut up when ultimately social conservatives have been, by black robed tyrants, forced … to fight at the federal level instead of the state level.”

There has been much ink spilled and bytes consumed in the past week over that tea party letter asking Republicans to, in effect, shut up about social issues. This is a problem that both sides have had in the past.

And let’s be clear here, it is not that these groups wants social issues ignored. They just want socially conservative issues ignored. They’re cool with repealing don’t ask, don’t tell — just ignore the judiciary usurping the role of the people or their legislatures dealing with gay marriage.

Some social conservatives have wanted federal government involvement in their issues at the expense of fiscal integrity and some fiscal guys have wanted government involvement in their issues while ignoring life, gay marriage, etc.

As Baseball Crank noted the other day, there is more than one “I” in coalition. Both sides must work together as best they can and it is inappropriate for either side to want to shut up the other side.

The fact is I completely agree with Jim DeMint. You cannot be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative and vice versa. The libertine sensibilities of many a fiscal libertarian will lead the country to social ruin causing government spending to bail out society and the spend-thrift nature of many Republican pro-life statists will lead the country to bankruptcy.

As a Christian, I recognize that the smallest possible government is in my best interest because all men are sinners and the less of them in charge of me the better off I will be. I just wish the secularists would understand that no society can survive undermining the traditional several thousand year old preference for the heterosexual nuclear family and life.

Now, I know many of you disagree with that and I cannot persuade you otherwise, but I do think there is common ground in this disagreement. It goes back to the idea of federalism, recognizing it no longer exists, and committing to restore it.

Our founders did not intend, nor did any governing coalition or black robed master at the Supreme Court intend, for this nation to have a national common morality. Unfortunately, in the twentieth-century our black robed masters decided over time that we must.

Ideally in this country, if you want gay marriage and abortion in California you should be able to have it. If I want real marriage and no abortion in Georgia I should be able to have it. And ultimately when California collapses in on itself those of us who upheld the nuclear family can fight over the leftover land.

That is the way the country was designed and intended. The thugocrats at the Supreme Court decided they had a better idea and now you and I must both adhere to a common morality, which over time has favored a secular society of libertine morality, which many of us believe will ultimately cause the destruction of our society. But that’s neither here nor there.

What is here is that whether you are for fiscal or social issues, neither side can afford to shut up when the folks in Washington insist that federalism is out and black robed thuggery and bureaucratic fiat are in.

it is both naive and ridiculous for any group on the right — and by the way more and more surveys are showing that tea party members are rather socially conservative — to tell social conservatives to shut up when ultimately social conservatives have been, by black robed tyrants, forced against their will to fight at the federal level instead of the state level.

Certainly, given the times we are in, fiscal issues are of paramount importance. But many of us remain concerned about the daily slaughter of children in this country as well as the constant undermining of real marriage and the nuclear family. And just as you and I both know that the nation cannot survive our profligate spending, I also know our national cannot survive the destruction over a few decades of the social structure put in place over several thousand years, ordained in the sacred texts of major religions, and shown throughout history to provide the most stability in society.

So we’re forced to work together as a coalition with a large swath of common ground. But for those of you who ultimately care not one whit about social issues, you are going to need to join those of us who do and fight like hell to restore federalism instead of just saying let’s have it without any recognition of the fact that we no longer do have it.

————————–
UPDATE: I have to say, having posted this now a couple of hours ago, there is a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the libertarian set. Let me put this another way, saying “no taxpayer funded abortion and weed for everyone” is all well and good until it happens. Then the rest of society is forced to pay to pick up the pieces of the potheads. Therefore, you have much more government in the end.

Likewise, saying “no taxpayer funding of abortion, but hands off my uterus” sounds terrific (for some), but for the fact that the issue should be handled at the state level and we are forced to deal with it at a national level. So yeah, I guess you can be a social liberal at the state level, but it seems pretty damn hard at the federal level to take that position with all of the implications therein.

And that leads me to the final point — in elected politics the “fiscally conservative social liberal” is as real as a unicorn.

Tags: Conservatives

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

rohanpatel

“I also know our national cannot survive the destruction over a few decades of the social structure put in place over several thousand years, ordained in the sacred texts of major religions, and shown throughout history to provide the most stability in society.”

Um, sorry, but with respect to the government – their job is to follow the Constitution FIRST, not impose religious mandates on the rest of us. Your quote above, sounds more like what the Taliban would say.
jtlfromfredmd

I could not agree more. The war must be fought on both fronts…fiscal and social. Neither can be ignored. And, I firmly believe that more of us stand by your side than not.
http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

The job of the government is to follow the constitution first, which allows these issues to be dealt with at the state level.

But the Supreme Court and Congress have ignored that and force us to deal with them at the federal level.

Um . . . that was the whole point of the post.
acat
C.S. McCoy

Fiscal recklessness and the moral decline of the country are both symptoms. A federal government with unchecked power is the illness. To cure the symptoms that each “side” is most concerned about, we must work together to fight the illness. Reinstate federalism and everyone wins, except for the statists.
fpete13527

As a Conservative, I have a combination of fiscal and “Social” views and they are NOT mutually exclusive of each other. They are together.
marshmom

I will point out that the same founders who wrote the constitution believed in God and stated in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by “our creator” with rights.

There is certainly no denying that the founders believed in God. I think what Erick was getting at is that you can’t take GOD (in whatever form a person chooses to worship him) out of society and expect things to be civilized. The progressives in this country have been working to destroy God in America ever since they got the first fraction of power and it hasn’t worked out so good for us as a society. There are many more unwed mothers, abortion by the millions, rampant welfare because men have been given no clear rules about what their roles are as men–one of which is to provide for his family, and the list goes on and on.

The constitution says that congress can make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof. It doesn’t say that the country has to wipe God out of existence completely. The progressives would just like to because then THEY get to become the most powerful figures in American’s lives and have us dependent upon them. I, for one, will never accept that reality and they are foolish to think that American’s on the whole ever will.
http://www.powerandconsequence.com Bryan Myrick

The primary issue I have with this article is that it fails to draw any lines between society and government. If the underlying premise here is that the policies of our government are equivalent to the beliefs of our society, I find that to be inconsistent with the American concept of freedom.
runner12

I could not agree more. We can fight on both fiscal and social issues. As I have stated before, very few politicians are socially liberal with an adherence to conservative ideals. The reality is that Christian values were what helped give birth to this country. Even our Founding Fathers who were agnostic or Deist agreed with the basic values that Christianity espoused and incorporated some of those values into the framework of the Constitution.
Kevin Allen

I always hear about them but rarely, if ever, have seen one in elected office. Invariably these social liberals don’t vote with us on the fiscal issues either. I would like someone to point out an elected official who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative.

I always remember a local political activist who said he always supported the pro-life fiscal conservative candidate because he knew if they could stand firm on abortion they wouldn’t sell out over taxes.
runner12

You are comparing us social conservatives to the Taliban? People who think like you crack me up and it is evident that you have no idea how social conservatives think. You think that we want to institute some theocracy, despite the fact that many of us are on here constantly speaking out against the intrusion of government. Do you really think that we are that unprincipled? All we are asking for is that Roe vs. Wade be overturned (on both moral and constitutional grounds), that marriage between a man and a woman be protected, and that the government will let us worship in the way we please and quit telling us to remove all symbols of the Nativity during Christmas (and the like). Oh, and not using federal funds to indoctrinate our children in liberal ideology in the public schools would be a step in the right direction as well. And maybe, just maybe, we could at least promote some sense of morality, just a smidge. You know, basic human values which seem all but passe to some in our culture.
You speak as if we want to make a law making everyone go to church and read the Bible everyday. Has ANYONE ever even become remotely close to suggesting something like that on this site? Good grief.
rohanpatel

Believing in God, and believing that policy should be imposed on the rest of us, based on politicians’ interpretations of God’s will, are two very different things. Please try to learn the difference.

Based on your comment, you seem believe it is the government’s job, mainly through mandates and policy, to make people responsible? It’s the government’s fault that people make bad choices like: unwed mothers, abortion by the millions, etc.?

Give me a break.

Govt. can believe in God all that it wants to. When it starts encroaching on my and other’s freedoms – then it’s a problem, and this doesn’t even include the fact that people of different religions can get into office. You’d really like a Taoist politician to pass a law on the rest of us, based on his Taoist religion?
Derek

…but stating that the importance of protecting marriage is a “religious mandate” isn’t an argument. No one is mandating you do anything, rohanpatel. That’s not even what that statement means in any event. Erick’s point is that common ground can grow out of a robust discussion of how restore the proper role and scope of the federal and state governments. Save the “religious mandate” crap for another thread.

For the record, there is a credible, secular case to be made for preserving the definition of marriage. Whether the federal government needs to be in the business of defining, defending, or promoting traditional marriage is another discussion altogether, but it is not a choice between a “religious mandate” or “follow[ing] the Constitution FIRST.”

Indeed, your stronger argument ? and one that is actually relevant ? is that the benefits of federal marriage promotion programs are questionable at best and, at worst, merely guilt Congress into over-funding ineffective programs (because it’s “for the kids” or “save civilization”) that actually do very little to preserve marriage or help kids. Indeed, these programs might be better left to the states, which can craft programs (or choose not to) that are innovative and responsive to local needs and concerns. If the ineffectiveness claim is true, that argument is both constitutional and rational ? unlike your comment.
C.S. McCoy

Pro-choice (up until viability)
Pro-Marijuana legalization
Supports ending DADT
Supports gay unions (but not marriage)

That’s pretty socially liberal, with the exception of his opposition to gay marriage. His fiscal conservatism is rock solid. I can’t think of many others pols, though.
ashland_avenue

Something in what you have written, Erick, touches a chord in what I have been thinking for some time.

You write, “As a Christian, I recognize that the smallest possible government is in my best interest because all men are sinners and the less of them in charge of me the better off I will be. I just wish the secularists would understand that no society can survive undermining the traditional several thousand year old preference for the heterosexual nuclear family and life.”

I can understand and appreciate every word of it, even though I am a Jew, not a Christian.

I found something particularly toxic in the Jewish Forward piece, referrenced in a diary item, by a female calling herself a rabbi, advocating sharp rises in taxes on upper income earners. Because in her words it would be returning money to its rightful owners, the government.

Putting me in historical context, my birth coincided with that of the State of Israel. The idea of girls celebrating a bat mitzvah, a coming of age party, was revolutionary in my circles, and at our synagogue they were allowed only on Friday nights, not Saturday mornings.

In the years that have intervened, what was once a simple religious service has morphed into a series of country club parties, themed events (disco, baseball, carnival), girls are full participants now, not only called to read from the Torah but consecrated as rabbis as well.

It used to be that on the most sacred of holidays, a part of the Torah was read delineating how man relates to man, to woman, to family. Describing in holy words just what is an abomination before God.

Nowadays, in spirit of political correctness, less ‘controversial’ passages are substituted.

We are so far past girls having bat mitvot, in some circles they are marrying each other, men as well, and calling it religion.

Which is reminiscent of the story about a man at a restaurant, sitting at a window seat eating ham and eggs. His rabbi walks past and storms inside.
What are you doing eating ham, the rabbi demands.

This is kosher ham, rabbi, the man says.

When asked to explain, the man says kosher meat is overseen by a rabbi. “You are a rabbi, and you are overseeing it. Therefore, it is kosher.”

Not every piece of food overseen by a rabbi is kosher. Not every piece of politically correct change is good for America.

The connections which glued us together, as Americans who formed a nation based on religion, as Jews, and apparently as Christians are fraying. You are right in that “our nation cannot survive the destruction over a few decades of the social structure put in place over several thousand years, ordained in the sacred texts of major religions, and shown throughout history to provide the most stability in society.”

And isn’t it remarkable that those who are working so hard to remove religion from the national debate stop that process when coming to the one religion which demands obeisance, the one faith which purports to replace our laws with its own, ie Sharia.

There is, hopefully, a renewal ongoing which will repair both the finances and the moral underpinnings of this once great nation. You are absolutely correct that balance sheet repair is intimately connected to spiritual repair, or with open borders, decay of the family structure, and the onslaught of Islam, we are all doomed.
rohanpatel

Our social structure is provided by OURSELVES and our morals, values and our own reading of religious texts, not a government or any politician elected to govt. no matter which party it is, as we are all sinners.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t gay marriage currently regulated at the state level? DOMA (federal) legislation was brought by Republicans, not Democrats. Republicans have tried (unsuccessfully) to add an amendment to the Constitution against gay marriage – taking powers away from the states to let them define it as they see fit.

You seem to cherry-pick when you want the government to be an interference, based on your bias, and thus it makes us no different than liberal Democrats. It will be a huge mistake when it comes to the general electorate, to start parading social issues now, esp. so early, as the tea parties power were on fiscal responsibility issues. Letting social groups co-opt the tea party movement, only after it has gained full steam, is a big mistake and would annihilate all the work we have done.
http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

nt Actually, one comment: calling us Taliban didn’t work for dKos, didn’t work for Alan Grayson… and it ain’t going to work for you, Sparky. So zip up your pants, and shoo.
chipbennett

…if liberals hadn’t attempted to usurp authority by judiciary fiat.

It is the liberals that keep attempting to assert their moral beliefs on everyone else, by escalating issues to the federal level by way of the judiciary.
chipbennett

…simply for believing in the societal benefit of the nuclear heterosexual family, as a matter of principle and wisdom passed down throughout the ages of civilization?

And this, from the person who took issue with Erick agreeing with Rick Perry that Supreme Court justices are the “Grand Ayatollahs” of the Constitution?

Moby.
The_Gadfly

Societies and political government only coexist with some sense of calm when both of these elements align. The cause for the turbulence in our current society is precisely the point that government policies as construed by certain elites moving the levers of power according to strictly ideological precepts about the human condition are in serious conflict with the societal expectations of what government should be doing. The driving energy of the Tea Party movement is to once again re-align the policies of government with societal expectations.
sheila

clearly demonstrates an eastern religious, god-is-in-each-of-us bias, and is fully congruent with Obama’s “we are the change we are waiting for” psychobabble.

America’s social structure (and historic morals and values) was founded on the reading of one religious text, the Christian Bible. Go back home if you want a society honoring the Bhagavad Gita. I don’t know about your ancestry, but my Founding Fathers clearly stated that they set up a republic that would function correctly only with a Christian and moral people. Nice try rewriting history; try it somewhere else.
wtrach

The argument that letting two men have the title of a “marriage” will undermine the nuclear family — to the extent that we should viciously deny fundamental rights to a discrete group of citizens — is one that must be demonstrated with hard evidence.

Where is that evidence to come from? The Netherlands? Massachusetts? Vermont, Iowa, California in 2008? My wife and I were just married last year and have a nuclear family now, despite all these states allowing gay marriage.

So why make unfounded assertions before having the data. Show us the data that the nuclear family is suffering in these places, and then let’s talk about preserving the status quo definition of marriage. But not now. Now we focus on fiscal issues to the exclusion of all else.
sheila

and is obviously unaware that the original colonies-turned-states all had religious requirements for office holders, which were clearly considered constitutional by the Founders. The motivation for the first amendment’s “congress shall pass no law” regarding religion was specifically to protect Christian denominations’ freedoms at the state level.

Your misdirection regarding Taoists is rather clumsy, as is your claim to be part of “the rest of us” when you are clearly not.
marshmom

Did you even read my comment?? Obviously not since you have spouted off too many ignorant comments to even reply to. I won’t try to reason with you since you seem to have no reasoning capabilities. It seems like you have opened yourself up to comments from others here as well, so I’ll let them deal with you.
Aaron Gardner

Does this include national security? How about immigration?

Do these things not have a cost to them? Are these things not also fiscal issues?

Driving a nation with tunnel vision only creates blind spots that will hurt your end goal.
http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

That is for another post of a more philosophical bent that what was intended here.
chamberD

. . . is to protect the people it governs.

The government protects its citizens when it advances policies that promote stable families, the smallest unit of government. If, however, government policies actually hurt families, as when it creates a culture of dependency upon the government instead of promoting self-reliance, as when it debases life itself with laws that promote abortion-on-demand for the sake of convenience and sexual hedonism, as when it diminishes the role of marriage in society by enacting liberal divorce laws and seeks even to change the meaning of marriage by permitting marriage between same-sex couples who on their own have no physical capability to bring forth new life — then we have a government actively engaged in the destruction of the family and of society.

The government cannot remain neutral on the family; its laws will affect families, one way or the other. In order for the government to be respected among the people and to be an actual legitimate government, it must advance policies that promote the smallest unit of government; it must advance policies that promote healthy families. That is not to say that the government has any business setting up boards and commissions on instructing families in how to be good families; that is not to say that compassionate conservatism — as it is known — should be a model for policy. What it does mean is that broadly speaking the government should have a pro-family, pro-life bent, while giving to the people the greatest lattitude and freedom in making a success of their own families — within traditional norms, as the traditional family has been shown to be the strongest building block of society for five millennia.

As the libertarian view is that government should be so limited as to give license to every vice of man so long as man is unencumbered by government, it is actually arguing for societal breakdown and an increase of government control to maintain peace and stability. For if there are few stable and strong families to teach self-restraint and responsibility, the power of the government — and the number of laws it must enact — must of necessity grow and increase. The libertarian view is actually self-defeating. It can be no other way.

This is why what Jim DeMint and Erick Erickson have said is true — it comports with reality. Whereas, the libertarian — and also the liberal view — are utopian.
JadedByPolitics

and will NEVER shut up! I will just as soon see the Social issues back to the States and those at GOProud would not because each time it is put on the ballot it is rejected and so to me they should SHUT UP because WE have proven ourselves on ballot after ballot across the United States at undermining Roe v Wade and when these so called Libertarians who want their issues decided by Courts get their issues on ballots and Americans standing with them perhaps I will give them an ear, until such time they are nothing but a bunch of hypocritical loudmouths!
JadedByPolitics

and will NEVER shut up! I will just as soon see the Social issues back to the States and those at GOProud would not because each time it is put on the ballot it is rejected and so to me they should SHUT UP because WE have proven ourselves on ballot after ballot across the United States at undermining Roe v Wade and when these so called Libertarians who want their issues decided by Courts get their issues on ballots and Americans standing with them perhaps I will give them an ear, until such time they are nothing but a bunch of hypocritical loudmouths!
eburke

Thanks much for giving voice to the rationale and reasoning of those who recognize that fiscal prolficagy and libertine behavior have their roots in the common human condition: the desire for hedonistic pleasure at the expense of the acceptance of consequences for those behvaiors.

Well, said…and thank you!
cwilson

A Friendly Reminder for the Circular Firing Squad and Don’t Blame Me – I Voted Conservative

Some quotes:

“Not a single Republican Senator who opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment voted for the Coburn Amendment. Not a single Republican Senator who co-sponsored the latest Embryo Destruction bill voted for the Coburn Amendment. ”

“the best indicator of whether a Senator is likely to support anti-pork measures like the Coburn amendments, is whether they also opposed government-funded embryo destruction or supported a constitutional amendment for the traditional definition of marriage.”

“The first interesting finding is that, of the 19 Republicans were seen as obstructionists to H. R. 4241 [the House version of the Coburn anti-pork amendment], only four of them (Johnson, Pickering, Jones and Ehlers) also voted with the majority of their Republican colleagues against the “Stem Cell Enhancement” (Embryo Destruction) bill. Similarly, less than half of these squishies voted with the majority of their colleagues on the Federal Marriage Amendment.”

For the most part, social conservatives ARE fiscal conservatives. For the most part, socially liberal Republicans are NOT fiscal conservatives. This isn’t quite the same as saying most fiscons are socons, but it comes close.
bogornes

“the desire for hedonistic pleasure at the expense of the acceptance of consequences for those behvaiors.”

As a married person, I really don’t think that support for gay marriage rights fits at all in your description.
lyddea

But Article 6 Paragraph 3 of the Constitution seems hard to square with the idea that the Founder’s motivation was to protect religious tests at any level:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
chamberD

And I’m glad you made it, Gadfly.
lockemadison

at http://1smallblog.wordpress.com/author/1smallblog/
chamberD

ashland_avenue. I agree with your conclusions that you have stated here so succinctly, especially the final three paragraphs.

One would think there is an actual effort ongoing to destroy every last vestige that remains of the God of the Bible. A fool’s errand, without doubt.
chamberD

ashland_avenue. I agree with your conclusions that you have stated here so succinctly, especially the final three paragraphs.

One would think there is an actual effort ongoing to destroy every last vestige that remains of the God of the Bible. A fool’s errand, without doubt.
cej

1.) Gary Johnson
2.) Ron Paul
3.) Rand Paul
4.) Joe Miller
5.) Justin Amash
6.) Mike Lee

Erick, I’m glad you’ve come around to the logic of the 10th amendment. Let’s put as much of governance at the state, local, and INDIVIDUAL level as possible!
cej

There’s not a single candidate for the nomination who has a better fiscal record than Gary Johnson. The man issued more vetoes than all the other governors COMBINED while in office.
http://1smallblog.wordpress.com/author/1smallblog/ lockemadison

is currently making a major push to increase awareness of theTenth Amendment, including a five-page survey.

Good list of unicorns, but I wonder how many are like Ron Paul: great on domestic issues, weak on international/national security issues.
Aaron Gardner
http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

I personally dislike the term and the idea, but pragmatism is in order.

We pro-lifers are never going to persuade the baby-killers to switch sides, so screw them. We lose nothing by excluding them.

The gay-marriage crowd is different. We can buy time by prioritizing the Federalism argument and at the same time use their votes. But anyone who believes that we can simply say ‘No’ to gays and leave it at that is delusional. The education system in this country has taught everyone under 40 that being gay is not only OK, but “Hey! Kindergartners, maybe you ought to give it a thought!”

This is not a truce. We need to strategize. This is War.
msctex

We come again to the place where definitions have veered from original intent, which always leads to confusion. I must submit that the truest Conservative borders on being a Social Liberal, because Conservatism places individual Freedom above all else until a point of conflict is reached.

A friend asked me a while back how I could simultaneously be the most Conservative and Liberal person she knows. My recognition of the reality of what functions with regard to fiscal matters carries over perfectly to interpersonal relations, which today falls beneath the rubric of the modern definition of “Liberal.” I am as “Liberal” as Jefferson and Paine, in that I recognize I do not have the right to inflict my beliefs concerning the way I choose to govern my personal life upon others who might have reason to feel differently, as long as their life and my own do not meet in a manner which causes true conflict. My lack of religious faith of course makes this far
easier — my Morality is as well based upon what works, as opposed to what I choose to believe will improve the quality of my afterlife. True, functional Morality IS Reason, as applied to human interrelations.

So Conservatism can easily guide one’s life in every way, and I believe it to be the healthiest, most realistic manner of approaching the world. There need not be any break whatsoever: if you want to be left alone fiscally, it only makes sense that you should leave other people alone socially, so long as their lives cause you no true reason for complaint.
http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

Those are great links and quotes.
http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

by not propping up failures at every turn?

Behavior and real life consequences have a way of teaching one what one ought and ought not do if one wants have a good life.

Instead, we have an overreaching government at every level from the federal down to the local. Marriage, period, wasn’t a government issue until we had such things like Social Security and federal income taxes. It was in the realm of the church, separate from the state, but now is in the hands of those who could care less except as a tool to get even more power.

The same can be said for just about any social issue, and especially those that are subsidized with tax dollars like abortion. If it were not for a long train of federal usurpations contra the Constitution social issues would be handled more appropriately at the state and local levels.

Now read Erick’s diary again with that in mind and maybe you’ll understand what he meant by:

?I also know our national cannot survive the destruction over a few decades of the social structure put in place over several thousand years, ordained in the sacred texts of major religions, and shown throughout history to provide the most stability in society.?
4life

I think abortion is so heinous that any reasonable civilization would and should make it illegal across the board. I have wondered if this huge financial mess we are in that precipitated the conservative ascendancy is Divine intervention for the purpose of ending legalized abortion. Maybe I am the only one who has had that thought. I hate to think that we would leave the issue alone when we have a chance to act to protect the unborn. Would we have a housing crash if we had the 50million killed by abortion buying houses? Would we be fighting a wave of illegal immigration if we had 50million more workers? Would we have a debt and deficit problem if we had 50million more tax payers? What have we done to ourselves? Now is the time to put an end to the madness!
calgacus

The real problem w/ what Erick said was ‘national’ instead of ‘nation’- bad grammar is a Southern characteristic. Also, most major religions are not sacred. Most major religions state that they are the true religion and therefore can not simultaneously all be sacred. As for ‘Taliban’ stuff, the fact is that sounds like something that oh I don’t know, Charlamagne would say. Or William of Normandy. Or Richard the Lionhearted. Any time someone mixes religion and politics does not make them like the Taliban. The Taliban has existed for a couple of decades.
http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

Which apparently is why Rohanpatel missed it.

The anti-soCon’s have a nagging habit of attacking moral issues legally, and legal issues morally…exposing, as I recently witnessed elsewhere, an inability to reason, or, on the other hand, disguise a deep bias.
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Erick, I think that you?ve crafted a very good, careful piece, and other Republicans would do well to follow your lead. The fact is that we need to form a governing coalition because the republic stands at a crossroads, and if we want to turn the tide against statism, we have a relatively small window of opportunity. The midterms were a good start, and we?ll need to gain a lot more ground in the next election and focus on essentials.

As you point out, federalism is the most important issue. I frequently confound my progressive friends, because I explain how, if given the opportunity to vote, I would favor things like gay marriage and certain other issues, but that if my preferences are made into law by judicial fiat, I am opposed to their implementation (Actually, I?d prefer civil unions for any two adults who want to enter into a unique legal contract for the purposes of taxation, inheritance, and the like, regardless of romantic attachment, and marriage should be religious and optional, but that’s really neither here nor there).

I don?t think that social conservatives should be silent by any stretch of the imagination (and socially liberal Republicans should not attempt to shout them down). I do think, however, that as Republicans prioritize the agenda, social issues should, for the moment, come after fiscal ones (there, but a lower priority). While it poses a moral problem, abortion on demand does not pose an immediate existential threat to America, whereas the Democrats? economic policies do.

The crisis that we face is, essentially, one of a federal government that regularly exceeds its constitutional parameters and cannot continue to do so if America is to remain America. Every Republican should be committed to shrinking the government and returning it to its actual Constitutional framework, and I think that this is where the Tea Party will have a lasting influence, pushing incumbents toward conservatism or replacing them. Things like abortion, gay rights, etc are debates worth having, but right now we need a litmus test of sorts, and it should be related to the nature of government, its limits, federalism, and the like. I?d love to see the ten points in Mark Levin?s Conservative Manifesto from Liberty and Tyranny become a standard, but that?s just me.

I think that the reason that fiscally and socially conservative positions tend to align is because they come from a similar worldview. You correctly name it as man?s sinful state. Like Ashland, I?m Jewish, and so I wouldn?t necessarily use the same language as you, but our worldviews appear to be similar. A constrained vision of human nature produces a belief in limited government and tends to be aligned with traditional morality (Even though I’m a live and let live sort, I’m very particular about the way that my children conduct themselves). Large government and progressive morality tend to arise from a belief that man is fundamentally good, that his nature is variable, or both. This idea is essentially stolen from Thomas Sowell?s excellent book A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, so I can’t claim it as my own.
calgacus

What are you going to say then? What if the Religious Right just joins up w/ Jim Wallis and the Social Justice crowd? ‘Viciously deny fundamental rights’? Where is marriage a ‘fundamental right’ – and by the way, what is a fundamental right? If it really is a ‘vicious denial’ than I guess America is, and has been, a country of vicious deniers. ‘Focus on fiscal issues to the exclusion of all else’- what about the wars? Should we have no position on that? I’m just saying, you can’t act as if all issues are not happening, as if they are not brought up routinely, and can’t be ignored. I agree that the most important issues right now are ‘economic’ – debt and healthcare; but I can not help but suspect you (and many others who take your line) are not just closet leftists in reality.
calgacus

Paine was a proto-Marx. Social Liberalism (in modern terminology) is very different than Libertarianism. Further traditional conservatism (Dr. Johnson, Edmund Burke, John Adams) did not place Freedom above all else. Liberalism did however- Frederic Bastiat, Adam Smith.
http://simplethoughts.weebly.com/ simplethinker

“Our founders did not intend, nor did any governing coalition or black robed master at the Supreme Court intend, for this nation to have a national common morality. Unfortunately, in the twentieth-century our black robed masters decided over time that we must.

…”That is the way the country was designed and intended. The thugocrats at the Supreme Court decided they had a better idea and now you and I must both adhere to a common morality…”

I may be mis-reading the post, apologies ahead of time if so. But didn’t the founders intend for everyone to respect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Isn’t this a national common code of morality? Laws against murder, for instance, are a national standard. Should murder be tolerated by one part of the country but outlawed by another?
http://stixblog.com Black River Wolf

Yes
lyddea

..my Founding Fathers clearly stated that they set up a republic that would function correctly only with a Christian and moral people.

If this was so, it is mighty curious that there is absolutely no mention of Christianity in the Constitution, no reference made to exclusively Christian concepts, and where religion is mentioned at all, it is to make explicit that no governmental judgement shall be based upon it. This is the Constitution, the collective document establishing how this nation should be governed, and in it the Founders chose, in their wisdom, to exclude even such terms as Creator or Supreme Being that would have been acceptable to the various Christian sects and Deists alike.

Also,

Rohanpatel’s comment clearly demonstrates an eastern religious, god-is-in-each-of-us bias … Go back home if you want a society honoring the Bhagavad Gita … I don?t know about your ancestry…

!!
ashland_avenue

In the same issue, another article states,

“Although there is a significant drop in Jewish engagement among all teenagers after their bar and bat mitzvahs, it occurs mainly with males, and in the non-Orthodox world.”

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/133016/#ixzz15ZWkB9Tt

I don’t think they are leaving Jewish observance for that of another religion. The destination: a liberal, secular vacuum.

Incidentally, the article’s title: The ?Missing Males? of Liberal Judaism. Kind of says it all, huh?
westforwestwing2012

Steph C, you are absolutely on target.

Among other things, you said:
“If it were not for a long train of federal usurpations contra the Constitution, social issues would be handled more appropriately at the state and local levels.”

This principle is what in Catholic Church teaching is called the principle of subsidiarity. Let every task be done by the smallest, closest-to-home unit that can do it–starting with the family. What is impossible for the family to do by itself, enlist the help of their church or neighborhood. Only when church, neighborhood, or other small, local non-governmental organization is unable to meet the need do you even consider letting government get involved. And of course all this assumes truly LEGITIMATE needs.

The majority of the American Catholic bishops seem to have forgotten that very important principle of subsidiarity–as evidenced by their support for the overall idea of federal-level health-care reform. Whether or not abortion was funded was a separate issue. Most of the bishops seemed to be content to let the government take over health care as long as abortion was excluded.

One of the very few exceptions–and the only one I know of who articulated a very excellent conservative case against government dominance of health care–is Bishop Walter Nickless. His article on this is probably the best thing I have read on the whole topic of health-care reform:

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34287

I’ll tell you someone else who “gets it” about subsidiarity (even though he’s not Catholic): Allen West, who is qualified to be President TODAY, with no other preparation–and will certainly be ready in 2012. If you agree–or if you disagree, and want to leave a comment!–please visit http://WestForWestWing2012.com.

I also really liked what Erick said:
“The spend-thrift nature of many Republican pro-life statists will lead the country to bankruptcy.”
and:
“As a Christian, I recognize that the smallest possible government is in my best interest because all men are sinners and the less of them in charge of me the better off I will be.”
westforwestwing2012

sorry, I meant for that last paragraph to be a separate comment!

What Erick has said is very important. To be pro-life includes looking out for the next generation in many ways. If the country goes bankrupt, and, God forbid, the economy completely collapses and there is widespread social chaos, you can bet that that does not conduce to building a “culture of life”!

In addition, our heavy tax burden is so onerous that many couples avoid having children, so that our national fertility rate, IF YOU EXCLUDE IMMIGRANTS–is below replacement level. The illegals are to some degree replacing the babies that were aborted or never conceived at all one generation ago.

Mark Steyn in his must-read book “America Alone” describes very powerfully how the West’s refusal to bear children is causing a demographic collapse that the Muslims are taking huge advantage of.

Allen West has addressed the matter this way: “This is an enemy who by sheer demographics are now out-populating us in America. Our birth rate is somewhere around 1.6 [below replacement level] while Muslims’ in America, and indeed worldwide is near 8.1.”

Thus we see one way in which abortion is not only a “social” issue but also a fiscal issue (there are not enough workers to pay into Social Security) and a national security issue (high-fertility-rate Muslims have more and more sheer demographic power worldwide).
onehutu

This thread really illustrates the diversity of opinions on these issues. My only comment is that Erick says “…all men are sinners…”. That statement reflects a particular theological view, not necessarily shared by everyone. Onward and upward!
congressworksforus

That doesn’t describe my libertarian views at all on social issues. (By the way, can we stop calling them social issues and call them what they are — moral issues?)

I just don’t want the Federal Govt. involved, because when they are involved — either way — there is nowhere to go if we don’t agree.

If these issues are handled by the States, then we still have a choice if we don’t like where we live.

What good people like yourself still haven’t grasped is that social issues are not the way to restore Federalism; fiscal issues are. Restore Federalism through the pocket book, where you will receive the support of the majority of Americans, and then you can fix all the social ills of the nation in the right way…

I don’t want to destroy government; I want to reign-in out-of-control government, which currently means the Feds (and a handful of really dumb, liberal states…)

Which means, for now (and I can’t emphasize the “for now” enough), social issues must take a back seat. The federal government broke morality in the USA — the only to fix it is to first break the power of the federal government. I think you’ll find that then, most of the social ills will fix themselves.
congressworksforus

Amen!
eburke
desertwanderer

heterosexual marriages. J. D. Unwin’s research on the subject has never been refuted, only ignored. He clearly showed that cultures and societies develop best when sexual energies are directed toward heterosexual marriage. This includes economic development. Thus, there is an inherent interest in the gov’t promoting traditional marriage because the costs of “anything goes” lifestyles only continue to rise.

I, for one, as a committed social conservative refuse to take a seat at the back of the bus while the “economic conservatives” try to solve our nation’s problems. It is simply the case that economics and moral issues are intertwined. The cost of abortion, single mothers, illegal drug use, rampant divorce, and licentious lifestyles of all types are taking a terrible toll – economic, social, and moral – upon our country. Therefore, trying to separate social conservatives and economic conservatives is foolhardy and doomed to fail.
congressworksforus

It’s socially libertarian.

All of his positions involve individual choice which is libertarian, not liberal. (Classic liberal, perhaps.)

Don’t confuse the two. It is where the political parties win, by pegging us in the middle. In fact, folks like Gary Johnson are much further to the right than the GOP… (admittedly, nowadays, that isn’t hard to be!)
westforwestwing2012

…and of course I agree with Erick’s key point that it is our fallen nature–the fact that all are sinners–that makes it necessary to have checks and balances on government, and keep government as small as possible, so that the “totalitarian impulse” that resides, to one extent or another, in every human being, is not allowed to run rampant.

The Founders recognized this–we are so indebted to their genius!–and that is what makes our Constitution unique in all the world. We must have LEADERS who believe this, understand why it is true, and are 100 percent committed to re-establishing the rule of law, not of control freaks, in this country….

leaders in the mold of Allen West:
http://WestForWestWing2012.com

And to those libertarian types who object to anti-abortion legislation because it would be an “intrusion” or “overreach” by the government, I would point out that there are few things more tyrannical–few things more “control-freak”– than claiming the right to kill another human being just because you don’t want them around. The whole reason government exists–ITS PRIMARY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE–is to prevent the private use of lethal force.
msctex

. . .only granted a glimpse of what he fought for. Had he seen this country function at its true potential, his common sense and reason would have led to an evolution in the views you cite.
LoveThatConstitution

With some exceptions, most crimes are state offenses. While life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if the basis of our freedoms, the Constitution was written to leave all power not clearly enumerated to be left to the states.

This is the exact argument to bring back Federalism as the Founders intended.
LoveThatConstitution

oops, this was supposed to be a reply to simplethinker’s “common morality” post
congressworksforus

The heading was a bit over the top for the comment. My bad.
notalibertarian

that while you convince social libs to put aside social (yes, social) issues “for now”, liberal activists will do everything they can “for now” to shove their agenda — social chaos — down America’s throat.

Is it possible that you aren’t seeing this threat because these social issues don’t matter to you that much personally?
notalibertarian

that while you convince social libs to put aside social (yes, social) issues “for now”, liberal activists will do everything they can “for now” to shove their agenda — social chaos — down America’s throat.

Is it possible that you aren’t seeing this threat because these social issues don’t matter to you that much personally?
notalibertarian

“that while you convince social CONS to put aside social (yes, social) issues ?for now?,
notalibertarian

“that while you convince social CONS to put aside social (yes, social) issues ?for now?,
asleep06

Though certain Founders could be characterized as deists, the Founders were all participants in a Christian society with a distinctly Christian history, deist beliefs notwithstanding. The Creator God in the Constitution is the popular Christian one at the time if only because that was the only real option for them.

Regardless, with respect to the actual Constitution, your paraphrase of the disestablishment clause in the First Amendment is inaccurate, which is helpful for your misinterpretation of the role of religion in politics but wrong. It actually says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” If there is an establishment of religion by the states, Congress is either not supposed to favor it with a law or not supposed to make any law concerning it whatsoever, depending on what “respecting” means.

The “separation of church and state” theory is a bogus anachronism that is more a function of ignoring the 10th Amendment, the Civil War, misapplication of the 14th Amendment, and changing attitudes rather than actual history. This is clear by the fact that state-established churches existed before the Constitution, during its creation, and well into the 19th century after the Constitution was adopted. The Constitution would have immediately nullified state-established churches if the First Amendment meant religion could not be established what you think it meant.

That is the Constitution.
asleep06

whoops typo. Mixed up two thoughts. It should read; “The Creator God in the time of the Constitution is the popular Christian one if only…”
westforwestwing2012

chamberD,

BRILLIANT! Very, very well put.

In a way, I am glad that things are coming to a head in this country–so that we are forced to have these discussions about “first principles.” I.e., WHY Barack Obama’s socialism is disastrous; CAN conservatism really be divided between fiscal, “social” and national security; CAN civil society survive if people who are formed by traditional Judeo-Christian values are excluded from policy-making; etc.

The election of an America-hating Marxist; the unexpected and spontaneous rise of the Tea Party; the “wave election” of 2010; and, please God, the election of Allen West as president in 2012 (http://westforwestwing2012.com) …

….future historians are going to have a ball with this era!
constitutionalconservative

Normally, I am in total agreement with your posts, but on this one I can only be in 80% agreement. At a practical level, you are dead-on with your assessment of the need for federalism. And you also rightly expose the hypocrisy of the socially liberal crowd who has made us take these social fights to the national level. It wasn’t the social conservatives who brought the values fight to D.C/

OTOH, even though I consider myself fairly socially conservative, I am not generally convinced that fiscal conservatism requires social conservatism at least as defined by say, The American Family Association. I do think that it is difficult to maintain fiscal conservatism in a libertine environment.

But at a practical level, as long as the push is for federalism and a basic grounding in our moral and cultural values, we have more than enough room for agreement to be on the same team.
asleep06

“under the United States” not “under the United States or the several States.” The oath is explicitly required for all office holders of the US and of the several States, but the religious test is explicitly forbidden just for the US, since it would have required invalidly respecting a valid state establishment of religion.

F. E. D. E. R. A. L. I. S. M.
asleep06

http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp

Same-sex “marriage” is not the only force undermining the nuclear family. But it is one of them.
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Most laws govern moral behavior in one way or another, even things like contract and real estate law. When people talk about morality, it’s usually a reference to sexual morality or something that derives from a particular religion (Most share the same core morals, however, as justice, some sort of familial norms, ?guarantees against theft, etc are necessary for societies to function).

The Founders established a shared morality based on Enlightenment ideals and British common law, essentially.

They left religious matters to states, which were free to do whatever they wanted. A national, irreligious identity is what judges have established, and this is, I think, counter to the founding ideals, because the federal government is supposed to be neutral between religions, not opposed to the whole endeavor.

This has the effect of altering the evolved, stable, traditional, national morality with an imposed one with a few fundamentally different ideals. This is, I think, a significant source of the conflict that leads to culture wars.
asleep06

If you talk about social issues taking a back seat, you will run into a brick wall and deservedly so because pro-life issues are critical.

Instead, you should do what is right and support the elimination of socially liberal policies when they come up, honestly note that we are doing what we can with respect to pro-life issues, and then explain that there is also time to put the damn banksters in jail, repeal health care legislation, and cut the Dept of Agriculture/Energy/Education, etc.
jamo

I don’t think most people realize what a large part of our success as a nation and the benefits of liberty have derived from Judeo-Christian tradition, whether any one particular individual believes or not.

The idea ‘love of neighbor is not born into man. The good feelings and mutual trust of each other that Americans have enjoyed have allowed them to generally interact with a handshake, confident in the general good intentions of one another.

A a counter example, Moslems don’t have it. Women act out of fear of their husbands and husbands act out of fear of the sheiks and sheiks act out of fear of Mullahs and Mullahs act out of fear of Allah. They all go through life terrorized by one another rather than reliant upon one anothers good intentions and wishes. That is the main reason, in my opinion, why they have nothing, run around with AK47s, destroy all beauty they see and generally seek pass their fear onto others similarly. It is a hell of a way to live.

Forget this ‘seperation of church and state’ nonsense. It is the tenents of faith that form the matrix of the state you live in. The framers only included that ‘freedom of religion’ in the first amendment as a personal guarantee of freedom, not as a requirement that the society or the state reject the inherent nobility of man as a fundamental principle.
cwilson

…it is a state crime. Now, the murder of a federal officer or agent is a federal crime, but by and large, murder prosecutions are left to the states. (IANAL…)
lyddea

The “Creator God in the Constitution” does not exist. There is no mention of a Creator (or any other euphemism) in the Constitution. Don’t take my word for it, read it!

And I wasn’t trying to paraphrase anything, my point was that the only mentions of religion in the Constitution are in the context of limiting the governments ability to make distinctions based on it. That is the only way in which religion is mentioned (“Year of our Lord” excepted). And I completely agree that “the Founders were all participants in a Christian society with a distinctly Christian history”, and it is precisely that fact that makes the the absence of any explicit reference to Christianity in the Constitution so striking!
http://christopherrenner.blogspot.com Christopher Renner

You’ve done better than I would have, however.

The few things I’d add, and these may segue into a diary:

1. Humans are deterred from doing harm to one another by two things: a) the threat of force, and b) moral compunction.

2. Relying on the threat of force alone to stop people from hurting each other inevitably leads to tyranny.

3. It follows that to avoid tyranny, humans need to be instilled with moral compunction to avoid harming others.

4. Morality is not acquired through “discovery” learning, it is taught directly to each generation. (As “Freedom Is Never More Than One Generation From Extinction”, the same can be said about morality.)

5. Morality has never been effectively instilled by the federal government, it has been taught by other institutions such as the family, the local community, the church/synagogue/mosque, and in some cases the public school or other state/local governmental institutions.

6. Social conservatives (at the federal level) have always fought to preserve our traditional institutions of morality, rather than to impose morality through the federal government.

7. Whenever you see a newly proposed “innovation” involving the federal government promoting morality, it inevitably comes from a Progressive.
bogornes

They tend to arise during upheavals in social policy, when they flare up and die down. The point is to not shoot them down, and harm ourselves in the process.
http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

I suspect some of the more libertarian elements of the tea party may react strongly to social conservatives. In fact, this may have cost us the senate race in Colorado (pro-choice suburban Republican women undervoted the race). Be that as it may, there are far more social conservatives than pro-choice Republicans. You’re exactly right; it’s a coalition. Fiscal and social conservatives are going to have to work together like they did under Reagan and move past their small spats for the greater good.
Bill S

I have been saying this for months. Conservatives are not multitasking-inhibited. We *can* work on multiple fronts, including the social conservative front.
Bill S

You are promoting a “solution” that clearly does not work, has not worked, and will not work in the future. The judiciary has usurped the concept of federalism, and that genie has done left the bottle for good. Prop 8 should have taught every federalism preacher that lesson.
Bill S

“Reinstate federalism”… nice dream. Never will happen. The courts have irreversibly undone the ability of states to determine their own standards. The federal judiciary has usurped states’ rights, and apart from a total conservative takeover of Congress and the White House that lasts for decades, it will not be undone. This would require a complete gutting of the federal judiciary and replacement with originalist, conservative judges. The odds of that are slightly lower than me winning a $200M Powerball drawing.
aesthete

Also, while Gary Johnson is personally pro-choice, he was functionally pro-life enough to be applauded by several pro-life groups.
chamberD

. . . that my comments have resonated with at least one reader here. Thank you for your feedback, westforwestwing2012.

No. It is not possible for America as founded to survive if prople who are informed by traditional Judeo-Christian values are excluded from policy making.

As per John Adams, a quote much cited these days:”Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Regardless of how many “i’s” there are in coalition.
chamberD

. . . that my comments have resonated with at least one reader here. Thank you for your feedback, westforwestwing2012.

No. It is not possible for America as founded to survive if prople who are informed by traditional Judeo-Christian values are excluded from policy making.

As per John Adams, a quote much cited these days:”Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Regardless of how many “i’s” there are in coalition.
chamberD

I hit the post comment “button” only once.
AceInTX
chamberD

You state, Bill S, that “the judiciary has usurped the concept of federalism. . . ”

And I reply that it hasn’t happened in a vacuum; the soil was first tilled by a progressive movement and a philosophical movement that dethroned the Judeo-Christian ethos that was the springboard of our founding,

Without a citizenry now habituated to doubt and moral relativism, the judiciary could not have been trained as they were in liberal, left-leaning academies; they would not have entered upon their careers as doubters themselves, at best, and at worst, outright “living consitutionalists.”

To pin this exclusively on the judiciary is to miss the big picture. The judiciary moved left as the country did, that part of the country, that is, where the elites hold sway. Meanwhile, the” locals” were pushed to and fro, some doubting, some unthinking — and easily misled by demagogues — and some still clinging to the America of our founding, and all that that implies

JMHO.
gd10782

You cannot understand the “Constitution” unless you understand the “Declaration of Independence”. Since, the latter was written first it only makes sense to me that our founders thinking had to run along those lines.
While no domination was given preference over another I cannot help but think of the words of John Adams.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. The problem of today is we are NOT a moral & religious people and cannot even understand or agree what a sin is and in that lies the problem. I will take less government and let whoever practice whatever and in due time they shall reap what they have sowed. The problem of course is we may all suffer for it.
gd10782

You cannot understand the “Constitution” unless you understand the “Declaration of Independence”. Since, the latter was written first it only makes sense to me that our founders thinking had to run along those lines.
While no domination was given preference over another I cannot help but think of the words of John Adams.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. The problem of today is we are NOT a moral & religious people and cannot even understand or agree what a sin is and in that lies the problem. I will take less government and let whoever practice whatever and in due time they shall reap what they have sowed. The problem of course is we may all suffer for it.
pedrom

Is statism. Our entire culture is based on Judeo-Christian principles and values and whether you view either as a religion or simply as a philosophy those principles and values have led to the creation of an American system which has accomplished unsrpassed achievements. Most social conservatives I know don’t really try to force their beliefs on others through government. It’s only a very vocal few who do and those folks, philosophically and logically, are little better than the statists. They’re not, however, a danger to the American system and they are NOT the enemy that the hard-left statists are. While I personally find some of the social mores propounded by social conservatives as governmental policy absurd and self-defeating, we must compromise, to an extent, to defeat the common enemy. Then let’s talk.
Adjoran

Nobody has said the social issues are the top priority for us now – with the economy stalled and the Obama-Reid-Pelosi debt bomb set to explode, we have to deal with the fiscal issues right away.

Everyone agrees on that; have you heard anyone saying otherwise?

No, this is part of a pattern. Social conservatives are always urged by the “moderates” and “libertarians” to put aside the social issues “for now.” The problem is they will never agree there is a good time to bring them up. It’s just a ploy to get us to go along with liberal social policies which, as they are supported by our silent acquiescence, become ever more difficult to reverse.

I hope every Republican Senator and Representative who believes in the sanctity of human life will demonstrate it by refusing to vote for any bill, budget, appropriation, authorization, or resolution which in any way condones, promotes, or subsidizes its taking. I hope they will not attempt to legislate changes into social institutions which form the basis for our very civilization.

Living without moral values is not a neutral position. Subsidizing or approving it is not a neutral position. An atheist government is every bit as much an establishment of religion as Henry VIII’s Church of England.

There was not a single race this midterm (at least that I am aware of) where the GOP captured a seat by running on socially liberal positions. Yet those who hold those positions insist they be respected above those who hold the traditional views.

Screw ‘em.
davesinsanantonio

had official state religions. They were not forced, or even coerced, by the federal government to give them up, although they each did. The last such state did not do so for several decades. The point is, as Erick indicated, those states each decided to do it, and when, not the federal government.
The reason for the “no religious test” clause, and the lack of other references to Christianity, was that some Christians did not believe other Christians were really Christians. In particular, some did not believe Quakers or Catholics or Methodists, or even Baptists, were “real” Christians, (as some view Mormons today) and would not have wanted them to serve in public office. In addition, the men in Philadelphia were keenly aware of the presence of Jews, and of their contribution to America and to the Revolution, and did not want to give any basis for persecuting them, or even of excluding them, as they were in Europe and Britain at the time.
davesinsanantonio

You say that reinstating federalism will never happen, and then you give the pattern for it to happen. If there were to be a “total takeover of Congress and the White House that lasts decades” then there would follow “a complete gutting of the federal judiciary and replacement with originalist, conservative judges. So, stop with the negativism and start working for the first part of your solution, then the second part will follow “as the night the day”.
kervick

The answer is simple albeit revolutionary. Modern conservatism needs to return to the enlightenment of the classical liberal founders. Embrace the Creator without the overt Christian references. Social conservatism should not in my opinion be a domain exclusive to Christians.

Thus, “American Values” are not synonomous with Christian (Biblical) truths.

The distinction is between belief and non belief as opposed to Christian and non Christian. This is not only unifying but also politically smart.
davesinsanantonio

in that murder is a state issue, not a federal one. Different states have a different standard for what constitutes murder vs. say manslaughter. That is not to say that any state condones murder, but that the legal definitions are not uniform. In fact, it has only been in recent decades that to assassinate a president was a federal crime ( I cannot remember what incident brought that fact to the public’s attention).
The problem comes when some overzealous statist (is that redundant?) finds out such an anomaly(?) exists that there is a push to federalize what had very effectively been a state issue for generations. I think it has much more to do with egos involved than with any real rational thinking. But, it is just one more usurpation that increases the power of the central government needlessly. The more power they have, the more they want, and the more they take. And, the more they resent and fight back against any who oppose their usurpative efforts.
davesinsanantonio

trying to get them to work peacefully together against the destruction that others would wreak on both of them. No one is asking you go take a seat at the back of the bus, just asking that you stop trying to steer it off the highway. Or, trying to force others to the back of the bus as you try to shove your way to the front. Just have a seat somewhere and let the bus run over the statists ahead of us.
davesinsanantonio

excommunicate you over the other 20% ever. But, we will still be wistfully thinking about those 20%, and hoping that someday….
davesinsanantonio

is that they have no “moral compunction”. In fact, they seem to resent those that do the most, and try to force them the hardest. What a miserable way to live! How unhappy they must be all the time. Bill Maher is a great example of a miserable human being, who “seeks to make others miserable like unto himself”. Joy Behar is in the same boat. Those two should marry each other and leave the rest of us alone.
JSobieski

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/03/texas-governor-signs-shoot-first-law.php
congressworksforus

It’s because the biggest threat is the fiscal future of the country. If we don’t fix that, we lose the war, regardless of whether we win individual social battles. You can win every social battle you want, but if they succeed in bankrupting us (they being D.C., period), then the individual wins are consigned to the trashcan of history.

IF individual issues “come up” — they won’t, you guys will bring them up — then yeah, we might support them, as long as the solution isn’t as bad as the problem.

And I give you a challenge — write a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion that (a) a lawyer/judge cannot drive a truck though, (b) will stand up over 100 years of scientific progress, and (c) doesn’t outlaw abortions when they are medically necessary, e.g., with an ectopic pregnancy.

Just thinking about it should, I would hope, make you realize that the solutions “social conservatives” typically want to pursue on this particular issue aren’t solutions at all. We need to think out of the box.
Bill S

Even the Reagan revolution lasted only 3 presidential terms, and several “permanent majorities” have been turned back in the last 3 decades.

This country will never be ideologically dominated by either side sufficiently to drive a wholesale turnaround of the judicial system. You’re smoking some good weed if you think otherwise.
bogornes

The only difference between a 30 year old conservative and a 70 year old conservative is their attitude toward gay marriage. We are beginning to get steamrollered on this single issue in blue states, and it will move into purple states as support grows. Liberals are embracing a legitimate conservative argument for monogamy (gay or straight). What is the strategy? Do we hope that 20-somethings will change their mind? Or do we eventually pivot on this issue?

Concerned in California
txbatman

You have to have faith that god will deal with sinners. And you seem to have forgotten that “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” It’s not my my place nor yours to condemm someone because their beliefs dont agree with yours. That’s what democrats do, supposedly not republicans.

If you want to fight for morality, start with the crap on tv, the destruction of the family unit in america, and giving schools and parents the ability to both love and discipline their children without the fear of going to jail. Fix the schools. Fix the health and human services departments around this nation.

What two adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business. And why shouldn’t gays be just as miserably married as heterosexuals?

As to abortion-Anyone that thinks government has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body is at heart a facist. I agree that anything after the first trimester should be banned, but there are already too many unloved, unwanted and uncared for children in this country.

Remember”In God We Trust” and I trust that he will deal with the sinners as he sees fit.
http://www.walkerprise.com kingstonjw

Suggesting that you must be a DeMint style social conservative to be fiscally conservative is simply an err of logic, and perhaps a bit of propaganda. Jim DeMint and Erick are wrong, and have tossed down a gauntlet to independents and libertarians at a time where we should be focusing on a short list of priorities that can be accomplished. This does not mean the discussion is not healthy or productive, or considered… but let me just give you a short list reminder of social conservatism as previously defined by Christians (and I am one so this is not simple conjecture).

I remember a very dynamic church leader telling the congregation what clothes were appropriate and not (slit skirts to knee were not) and not to drink Coca-Cola. I remember in my life time when church leaders preached against interracial relationships (Mexicans were OK but blacks were not). I can easily argue that the conservative dogma of clerical celibacy has led to severe unintended consequences. I’m sure readers have their own lists, but the point is that Christian conservative dogma is not always correct (or even Biblical), and should not always be the driving factor for public policy.

I prefer, as it seems some other contributors here do, to focus on the critical conservative social and fiscal values that would limit the now costly powers of the Federal government over the State, and the State over the Community, and the community over the individual. But I also support social liberal values that allow individuals to be individuals and communities to live and grow and change appropriate to their own developing values without having to worry too much about what they are doing in California. Educate instead of indoctrinate.

And just a small note on the big topic of abortion: it is beyond me to believe it is the wrong kind of social value that would protect a brutally raped woman from continuously suffering her assault by forcing her to carry an unwanted child to term.

Apparently, I am a unicorn.
asleep06

I quote myself: “whoops typo. Mixed up two thoughts. It should read; ?The Creator God in the time of the Constitution is the popular Christian one if only??”

And I know what your point was. But your point is wrong for the evidence and reasons stated above, none of which you engage.

The historical facts are that 1) the First Amendment forbids the FEDERAL government from supporting/interfering in (“respecting”) establishments of religion (like the state established churches that continued into the 19th century), and likewise 2) the Constitution only forbids a religious test for federal office holders. This is precisely because the states differed in which Christian denominations their state governments established, and no one wanted the federal government to make one state’s established religion the entire nation’s established religion. But state establishments of religion were common and supported by the people in their respective states.

It might be that the Founders did not explicitly cite Christianity in the Constitution because they intended to exclude Christianity from politics. But there is no historical evidence for your interpretation of this “striking” fact and much historical evidence for the view that they did in fact include Christianity in state politics (and states were more like nations back then). In fact, your conflation of “governments” when you should distinguish between state and federal governments as the Constitution does indicates you don’t take federalism seriously.

Could it be that this fact is so “striking” to you because you read into it your preconceived notions of how the Constitution and politics should relate to religion?
asleep06

I agree stronger federalism will be extremely difficult to re-institutionalize, and that it might take decades. So what? Federalism didn’t die overnight. Neither will it be resuscitated overnight. But then we knew already that short-term thinking in American politics led to our current disastrous situation and that we need to switch to the long-term, long-haul view, right?

To me, federalism’s worth the effort because as Montesquieu wisely argued, nations with large territories will inevitably increase the strength of the central government and end up in empire and tyranny apart from 1) the separation of powers, and 2) federalism. Now, I think it’s evident by now that Montesquieu was correct.

So, what’s your alternative to federalism to prevent the tendency of the consolidation of power in the central government leading to tyranny, fascism, etc. etc.?
asleep06

… is on display. This behavior tends to happen when an ideological agenda (of any sort) is being defended/pursued.
asleep06

Every law, policy and regulation is an inflicting of beliefs on everyone else. Moreover, the division of “private” and “public” lives simply does not work in all but the most trivial of circumstances. Is abortion a merely “private” matter? Not to the baby. Or is it okay to kill someone if it’s in “private”? Does my breaking of a contact in “private” make it not a crime? The vast majority of actions social conservatives care about affect other people and are public issues, like the public recognition of what marriage is.

“As long as their life and my own do not meet in a manner which causes true conflict.” Well, that’s the rub and where libertarian idealism fails. Who decides what “true conflict” is? Who decides what “harm” entails? Who decides if “what works” is really working? What would it look like for something to “work”? Sophomoric libertarians think the answers to these questions are easy and common-sensicial unlike those crazy religious people. That only shows their naivete.

“functional Morality IS Reason” Are you serious?

The best libertarians in practice don’t pontificate ignorantly concerning the nature of morality and how backwards religious people impose their private beliefs on others but enlightened folks somehow don’t.

Instead, they are concerned with the real work of politics in our time, which is to understand and explain how the federal government through its economic subsidies and abuses of power are strangling the freedom of states, communities and individuals for the benefit of the well-connected political and economic Elite.
asleep06

Faith in God doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t punish criminals. “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone” means that mercy is sometimes, on a case by case basis and by the appropriate authority, warranted. It does not mean that society should not make laws that punish particular forms of bad behavior. It is actually our place, through the institution of the government, to condemn someone who believes and acts upon a belief that is sufficiently immoral and destructive. I know you also believe that; so why pretend you don’t?

The issue never is about the general idea that certain behaviors should be condemned. Everyone, republicans and democrats, agrees with that. The real question is: which behaviors? Sidestepping the real question is simply abdicating your responsibility to think about these things and kicking the can down the road.

I agree that the “fight for morality” should not be only or even primarily through the government. But it should be secondarily.

What two adults do in the privacy of their own home is sometimes only their business and sometimes not. If sodomy laws are to be opposed, it will be because it’s impractical to be enforced and dangerous to give the government such power, not because a community ought to suffer the disordered sexual behaviors of their neighbors. And gays literally cannot “marry” each other because they cannot form a conjugal union which is what consummates a marriage, just as I literally cannot become a turkey even if someone were to call me a turkey or a law were passed that I am a turkey.

Lastly, anyone who calls an opponent of abortion a “facist” is ignorant of what fascism is and ironically doesn’t understand that 20th century abortion and eugenics movements arose from the same fascist roots (See Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism), But if you want, you can keep repeating dumb arguments like “the government doesn’t have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body” that are unreasonable if taken literally (Can she kill someone with her body?), and completely missing the point if taken figuratively.

You won’t persuade anyone, though you might make yourself feel righteous.
asleep06

So, do you see anyone suggesting that “Christian conservative dogma” “is always correct” or “should always be the driving factor for public policy?”

Is this the kind of “education” we can expect? Straw-man argumentation?

Should conservative readers just dismiss you now? It seems you have already dismissed us because you apparently think pro-life people LOVE it that a “brutally reaped woman” ought to “continuously suffer her assault.” No, we hate that and give support to such women (from charity statistics, apparently more than the social liberals who supposedly care so much about them), but the alternative of murdering an unborn child is even worse. Ask yourself if the unborn child is to be responsible for the rape his father committed. No, the child is innocent and as terrible as the pain of bringing a child of rape is to term, killing the innocent child is even worse.
eburke

in *mind* when I penned that phrase because my position on it is not based on categorizing it as ‘libertine behavior’.

But, like you said, while reading comprehension may not be an ideologue’s friend, projection is.
eburke

are the FisCons, you may want to direct your comments towards the ones that keep bringing it up.
bogornes

The observation (which is a general one not meant to be specific to your post) is that your original post strongly supports the shared vision of conservatives on many issues. Conservatives lose virtually no votes by strongly holding to these principles. Unfortunately, the issue of gay marriage needs to be addressed differently. We stand to lose that argument (and are already losing it among the young).
msctex

We simply look at the world in different ways. But I did not and do not accuse Christians of ignorance, as you here accuse me. I believe Christianity to offer the most functional moral code of all major religions; I simply cannot overlook the things I have read, which have rendered Faith an impossibility. I never called nor insinuated anyone was “backwards,” “crazy” or anything else remotely ad hominem — those words are all your own, and how you managed to infer anything of the sort is beyond me.

That said, I am quite serious: Morality is Reason applied to human affairs. Some of us simply do not require metaphysical support for what we can recognize as obvious. Ironically, I imagine we believe largely the same things, just with your final argument being “Because God said so,” and mine being “Because that’s the way it is.”

But you might do well to ask yourself why you felt it necessary to mount a personal attack, while I did not. It is the sign of the losing argument, every time.
streiff

which “morality”? There is more than one out there.

What debt does “turn the other cheek” or the Golden Rule owe to reason?
lyddea

I have no preconceive notions about the relationship of the Constitution to religion. I read it, and it is clear on its face. There is no context, no interpretation, no paradigm shift that can torture an endorsement of Christianity out of the Constitution. Religion is mentioned in one way, and one way only, in the Constitution, and that is for the purpose of limiting the government’s ability to make distinctions based on it. Read it, please!

You have latched on to this idea that the States had established religions. And I agree that this was permitted by the Constitution (at least pre-14th amendment when it becomes more questionable). The idea of Federalism was very strong. Slavery was another such issue that was known to be practiced in several States and left to their judgement. But I certainly do not read that as a Constitutional endorsement of slavery. Just as there is no Constitution endorsement of State-established religion.

I guess the question at this point is whether you are arguing in favor of State established religion? Should there be a Church of Georgia? If not this, then what is your point?
msctex

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is as eminently and purely reasonable a thought as has ever been conceived. And I would say there is one true Morality, just as two and two always equals four. We are creatures of the same universe, all subject to the same laws.

“Turn the other cheek,” however, will only get you punched either 77 or 490 times, depending upon translation. That one has always seemed entirely free of reason, I will grant you.
tcgeol

Only a small number were, admittedly among the best known.
tcgeol

After all, someone’s value system will let them do these things and we certainly can’t judge them for their beliefs.
http://www.walkerprise.com kingstonjw

You should re-read my post. Yes, I did see how the writer suggested conservative dogma was required in order to be a fiscal conservative, which was the theme of the original entry and presumes the definition of social conservatism to be agreed and correct. It said that if I don’t believe in the writers version of social conservatism then I cannot possibly be a fiscal conservative. Isn’t this what it said? Maybe I am wrong; explain it to me.

There is nothing straw man about this and I’m sorry you found it necessary to be insulting. You just disagree and take offense. I’m glad that there are groups willing to support victims, but I am also cognizant that all victims would not agree with you. Does this mean they cannot be fiscally conservative? Erick proposes so.

And I was also very clear that this was a good discussion to have. We should work through these things individually without derailing fiscal progress. I clearly believe that DeMint social conservatism is not required to be a fiscal conservative. I gave examples of why. Are those bad examples of how social conservatism will change over time, often church by church?

You are entitled to your beliefs which I do not question — I just may not agree with them all. And guess what? I am pretty fiscally conservative regardless of what Erick may think.
http://www.walkerprise.com kingstonjw

Come now, murder, rape and theft are almost universally agreed. We have a clear national consensus that is compelling.

The problem here is that we still don’t have a clear national consensus on very emotional challenges like abortion and gay marriage. We should do a better job of working through these issues individually without being snarky about it.

But at the very least we need to learn and understand there is still disagreement here and not let it derail other conservative efforts that we have great consensus on.
tcgeol

Sure, I was being snarky, but I said nothing that didn’t logically follow from your post.

The problem is that right and wrong don’t depend on national consensus. We don’t depend on a vote to give us our rights and a vote can’t change the fact that some things are wrong. Obviously, there is a huge difference between morally wrong and legally wrong, but killing babies should hardly be a gray area.

Homosexual marriage is government recognition and implicit approval of a relationship and has nothing to do with a right. For someone to change our law to approve of something that has never been approved in general throughout history and that many (if not most) of us find morally wrong is not exactly a minor issue.
tcgeol

nt
edintexas

You obviously have a modern view of the Constitution. This is made glaringly clear by your statement “You have latched on to this idea that the States had established religions. And I agree that this was permitted by the Constitution (at least pre-14th amendment when it becomes more questionable).”

For starters it isn’t an “idea” that there were State supported religions, but a fact. And there isn’t a single one of the Founders who would not be aghast, were he to return and see such a statement, that anyone would think that the Constitution in any way “permitted” a State, or the several States, to do anything. The States had the power, not the Federal government via the Constitution. The States _gave_ power to the Federal government via the Constitution, not the other way around.
edintexas

I forgot to make the comment that you apparently interpret the absence of reference to a Supreme Being/Deity/Creator/God to be a dispositive indication (i.e. they left it out deliberately so as to inform later generations that they disposed of the very idea of religion and God within the United States). And one could make the case that this is how some Federal Judges have understood it. But is it logical to believe that the lack of reference was intended to be absolutely exclusionary?

Of course the alternative interpretation of the absence of such reference is quite the opposite. That is, they believed that it was a reference which was so well understood that it simply wasn’t considered necessary to mention, at least beyond the few specific instances of limitation.
lyddea

If you can manage to interpret the complete absence of something as an implicit endorsement of that thing… Well, we’re beyond preconceived notions at that point.

The Constitution describes a form of government that is not Christian. One need only to read it to see that. It also describes a form of government that is not anti-Christian, that cannot exclude Christians, that may not harm Christians for being Christian. And again, one need only to read it to see that.

Non-Christian is not anti-Christian, victim culture notwithstanding. To get back to my original point – it is manifestly untrue that “the Founding Fathers clearly stated that they set up a republic that would function correctly only with a Christian … people”.
papakilo

Consider: The BTAF&E cannot grab guns if it is defunded. Planned Parenthood would wither away if there was no funding available and no tax relief for “charitable” contributions to such organizations. Let the fiscal conservatives get the Congressional spending genie back inside a one pint bottle and place that bottle on a pedistal at the center of the floor under the Capitol Rotunda, where it can be watched night and day. Then, all the issues near and dear to social conservatives will be resolved and that would include about a score or two dear to me.
http://freedom-light.org solvoreor

I do not agree that all conservatives are social conservatives. And not every one who wants a smaller federal government is a libertarian. So it is out of character for you to respond liberally with “weed for everyone” which is another form of shut up. A trick that should be reserved for use by Liberals exclusively, Lest we loose sight of the distinction between liberals and conservatives.

The tea party movement is the early stirrings of a paradigm shift towards a government run by people with a healthy respect for the limits of their authority. Nancy Pelosi in her dogged pursuit of a San Francisco Centric health care bill stripped away any pretense and disguise that hid the nasty, corrupt, disgusting and in my opinion criminal behavior of the Congress as it forms a coalition to impose on Americans that they would not willing adopt for themselves. Americans voted for change from Republicans, and obviously they are not happy with the change the Democrats brought. Ignoring this lesson will result in disappointment at the next election. The message is to concentrate on a limited range of ideas. To focus on the fiscal aspects and leave the social aspects aside. Embrace what is agreed on, not pick up the reigns of power to run roughshod over people in a different direction.

The government in Washington needs to be reformed. There is little difference in the methods required to impose conservative social principles and liberal social principles. Both are adequately compared to sausage making. The country wants this ended, and on that we can agree.

Imagine a country where the local governments are dedicated to defining social principles, and where people could gravitate naturally to those areas where they felt at home. Where people in counties and states defined health care laws and set prices, or not. Imaging a country where the states competed effectively for jobs, and were the innovators of democracy, the incubators of great ideas and solutions. A country where the federal government was viewed and treated with the respect of a junk yard dog. A necessity that served an important purpose for security and so you feed it, but you also cage it lest it do more harm than good.

I grew up in the vestiges of that country. Here, in America. The tea party movement is about restoring that country and we can restore it. Provided we don’t loose sight of the most important thing. What the people in the black robes stole from you, forcing you to fight what should be a local fight on a national stage is what needs to be changed. If we fall into the trap of trying to do exactly the same thing Nancy Pelosi did, for a conservative rather than socialist agenda, the rejection by the American people will be just as great. And the damage socialist do when in power is never fully undone.

What Republicans must do is concentrate on dismantling the power of Washington over the domestic agenda and restoring it to the states. Then you will no longer need to argue your concerns on a national stage. In this you will get the support of many liberals as well. If you can respect that there are people that do not agree with you, and that they need the liberty to determine their own values as long as they too respect your right to the same and concentrate on this message we can take back the country. And the old folks in black robes can be defanged as well.
weirddave

….but can we please dial down the rhetoric? Returning power to the states? Check. Strengthening the traditional family? Check. Repealing rules that encourage single parent households and incentivize men to abandon their responsibilities? Big check. Reject gay marriage because it’ll lead to the downfall of society? Please. Get some perspective. Get a reality check. Gay folks comprise about 6-8% of the population. If every single one of them got married tomorrow, in full, legal ceremonies at the National Cathedral, the practical result would be….nada. Nothing. Zip. A profusion of new households with impeccable decor, perhaps. There are far, far greater threats to the nuclear family that is the foundation of a stable society than gay marriage. Can we deal with those first?

(Even from a Christian religious standpoint I don’t understand the vitriol. I’ve read the entire New Testament several times, and gay folks get mentioned exactly twice (and one of those in context and correct translation is clearly referring to child molestation, a different subject entirely), by Paul, and never by Jesus. Even if gay sex was the most heinous sin imaginable in the Christian lexicon(and it’s not, it’s just a sin, like any other sin that you or I commit daily), it’s pretty clear that God has the duty, and reserves to himself the right, to punish sin, not us here on earth. If that’s where one is coming from, trust God, and tend to your own knitting.)
simplethinker

This is obviously something I need to consider further and learn more about. r

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

More Than One ‘I’ In Coalition

The fiscally conservative, socially liberal politician is the unicorn of American politics.

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL