Any suggestions Erick?

“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.” The Epitaph for America’s Future?
Posted by Ausonius (Profile)
Saturday, February 27th at 9:47PM EST
47 Comments

Many have read a version of the following statement from “moderates,” defined here as people who want to seem high-minded and objective by staying “above the fray.”

“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.”

The goal in this essay is to demonstrate the illogicality of such anoxymoron.

For ultimately fiscal conservatism will be impossible, if you support social liberalism.

http://www.redstate.com/ausonius/2010/02/27/%e2%80%9ci%e2%80%99m-a-fiscal-conservative-but-a-social-liberal%e2%80%9d-the-epitaph-for-america%e2%80%99s-future/

“SoCons” and “Ficons”: It Is Time To Come Together
Posted by runner12 (Profile)
Monday, December 27th at 7:15PM EST
215 Comments

(The below is made up of excerpts)

what I do want to discuss is the why behind some of the distrust that exists out there between the two groups and how we can come together to achieve our goal of restoring this great nation….
it centered around those who self-identified themselves as fiscal conservatives versus those who were social conservatives. I am not going to rehash some the statements that were made. They have been discussed quite a bit on this site. What I do want to discuss is the why behind some of the distrust that exists out there between the two groups and how we can come together to achieve our goal of restoring this great nation……
I hope and believe the days are long gone of social conservatives supporting candidates who are not fiscally conservative, socially conservative, and champions of limited government

http://www.redstate.com/runner12/2010/12/27/socons-and-ficons-it-is-time-to-come-together/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This post is in response to the above 2 posts on RS. Please read the two posts first if you have not other wise you will not fully understand mine.

I would like to know if this is:

Highly possible
Possible
Not likely
No FN way

Here goes.

This may help those who wish to be fiscally conservative and socially concerned at the same time with out being an oxymoron.

1. Being 100% fiscally conservative, will make you conservative and 100% socially concerned at the same time by default.
(100% fiscally conservative as it pertains to a Federal & State Government made up of a moral and religious people, the U.S. Constitution and laissez-faire capitalism)

2. Being 100% fiscally conservative, will help to eliminate most, if not all social issues, by leaving more money down at State and social (local) levels, by default.

Say a person sees a starving man setting out side a restaurant. That person reaches into their pocket, takes out a ten dollar bill and sends it to a government program that provides for the hungry. How long will that person have to stand there till the restaurant owner comes out and takes the man in to eat with that ten dollars? Or. Is it better for that person to just take him in and get him something to eat and walk out with change?

If government is fiscally responsible, that person is more likely to have that ten dollars to spend as he/she seems fit.

Fiscal is fiscal is fiscal, and can peaceably rally under one fiscally conservative flag. (peaceably, meaning, 100% in agreement)

Social is personal is personal. There are as many social issues as there are people.
(yes, the 100% fiscally conservative people have social issues to, but elect not to place the burden on the government or it‘s people)

Thus, there are as many different kinds of Social Conservatives as there are Social Conservatives. Which is OK. But. The fact that all most every one is different, will never allow them to come together peaceably under one Socially Conservative flag. ( peaceably meaning, 100% in agreement)

The truth is, all current political groups on the right, including the Tea Party, are tainted with an infiltration of one type of politics or another. How ever the Tea Party much, much less than the others, but only by the fact it is newer.

Should a fiscal/social convert to a 100% Fiscal Conservative, they need to come together with the current 100% Fiscal Conservatives, under a new flag with a new title and meaning.

When, and ONLY when, Fiscal/Social Conservatives agree 100% with the first two statements 1&2, will you resolve your oxymoron and be able to come together under one flag like runner12 is requesting.

A 100% fiscally conservative government may never happen. However, it is, directly proportional. The closer the government gets to being 100% fiscally responsible, the more money will be left for social issues.

As you know, I call myself a Constitutional Capitalist. The two words each, only have one meaning each, not one for each person who follows it.
This is what I use as a new title to separate me from the other conservatives. I am 100% fiscally conservative with social issues.

When the Union was formed, it was formed by many different minded men. But. They all flew under the same flag. The American Flag. They were all Americans, “A” political. Being a Constitutional Capitalist is being for the Constitution and being for capitalism, it to is “A” political.

Now.

Fiscal and Social are oil and water. The two will never mix.
Those that say they are both a Fiscal and Social are oil and water in a Conservative bottle.

Well.

The bottle has spilled.

The falling apart of the Conservative Party is inevitable. The question is. How long will it set back the 100% fiscal right?

Should a full split occur before 2012 it will mean 4 more years for the left.

If it doesn’t. The fiscal right will win, but only get 4 maybe 8yrs and then will lose it back to the social side, either the social right or the social left.

Most of the political spectrum is moving right of center.

The left-right wing has become saturated with blue dog and other moderate Democrats’ mixing in with the Social Conservatives of the right. Forced to the right by the on slot of the hard left. Thus the reason for the decline of people calling themselves Democrats.

Most of the Tea party is made up of the increasing Independents‘, most of which are made up of Fiscal Conservatives splitting from the Social Conservatives and moving farther right.

The split will result in either a three party system made up of the Constitutional Capitalist Party (fiscal right),
Social Republican Party (the old Democratic Party) and the
Socialist Party left of center.

Or.

It will result in a two party system made of the Constitutional Capitalist Party (fiscal right), and the
New Democratic Party (old R Social Conservatives and moderate Democrats)on the left, with the hard core Socialist Party pushed out all together.

In a perfect world, the Constitutional Capitalist Party will win and rule for 12yrs leaving no need for a party for taking care of social issues leading to an A political Government. Hay! I can dream can’t I.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING A THIRD PARTY.
Just a new name, something other than just Conservative Party,
Something that better reflects the current move to the right.
Preferably something “A” political. Something non ARGUMENTATIVE.
Yes, I would like it to be The Constitutional Capitalist Party, but I will settle for anything, even The Fiscal Conservative Party.

I am typing this post only to invoke thought and spur civil debate.

To imply, I am implying something else, is for you to imply, you are an Antagonist.

p.s. I’m interested in what mirac777, mirggio, acat, aesthete, TeddyMalone, Doc Holiday and runner12 have say about this post.

More info

Social conservatism is fiscal conservatism #1: Introduction
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/graham/100512

Social conservatism is fiscal conservatism #2: The folly of social libertarianism
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/graham/100513

A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor,
social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

Thus the reason for a Federal & State Government made up of a moral and religious people,

we frame a winnig debate against libs gone wild with job killing, nation strangling regulations

..got up at 3 AM and didn’t hear your dulcette tone so tuned in to a replay of Hugh Hewitt……

TEA Party Patriots is actually looking for someone along the lines of Steve Forbes or Dick Armey or someone like that. One of their folks called me and asked if I knew of anyone. Of course, the first person I thought of was Erick Erickson.

www.Summit11.org

They also need a grassroots flat tax guy if there is such a person. If there is such, he would be here on RedState, right?

I’m for the fair tax because I feel it will be the hardest to corrupt.

http://www.pafairtax.org/resrcs/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf

Health care bill goes to Senate for up down vote.

24 or so Democrats up for reelection vote it down, helping the right get it shot down.

President Obama vetoes.

The 24 or so Democrats go home and say they helped vote down the HC bill and it’s not their fault it’s still alive.

The question is.

Are we better off having pushed this all the way?

Or, would we have been better off maybe taking 10 or so more seats then we would have?