I base my assertion on analysis of information deriving a conclusion from my review. Logical, reasonable, reasoned. It would take a while to detail the steps to the conclusion so I summarized in my post but I’ll follow up with some thoughts on the matter.

On honest answers:

War spending – in the hands of Congress – is an issue. If the Congress, which went Democratic during the Bush Administration, really wanted to ‘stop the Wars’ they would have done so. Man/Woman up, stop funding. Check and balance, totally acceptable. Instead they chose to fund the Wars well past “Republican” spending levels. It’s a horrible contradiction easily proven. Fact is most people cannot be honest about it.

Ask a Liberal about “the Rich”. Ask for a common definition. If it’s 200-250K per year it’s 2% of the population. Ask what the issue is with “the Rich” – too much money (property), too little taxes, not fair, etc. Fact is someone being rich has zero impact on me – other than the fact that I’ve never been hired by the poor. No matter how you slice it the Government receives nearly 50% of all of it’s funding from those folks – that 2%.

The honest answer is that Government growth consumes wealth and as it continues to grow it continues to need to be fed. “the Rich” are not the problem. Wealth is fickle, property is personal and spending more than you take in is stupid. If you don’t want “the Rich” to have the advantage of the loopholes make the system easier, remove the ability for special interests to lobby lawmakers to put in the loopholes. If we can make a Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights fit on 6 pages I think we can get rid of 60,000 pages of tax code and consolidate a bit.

We the People have allowed Government to grow so large it’s self sufficient and so complicated we can’t comprehend or understand it let alone interact and control it. Honest answer – we need smaller Government and getting into the Social Engineering business is not going to make a smaller Government.

On Social Liberalism:

Social Liberalism leads to a reduction of freedoms, infringement on liberty, an increase in dependency, an erosion of personal responsibility, the evolution of dependency, and the destruction of the concept of “fairness”. It is exactly the opposite of a “Darwinistic” approach and again another Liberal contradiction. It’s Nanny-stateism.

Small government Conservatives are not Social Liberals.

Conservatism is not status quo ante but a belief that a free person in a free society is the best engine for freedom for all people, for economic growth, enabling the protection of rights by not infringing on them and allowing people to learn their life lessons by trial and error. Unfortunately due to it’s lack of structure it’s easily open to atrophy and dissolution.

Social Liberals view society as a field in which fairness does not exist but must be imposed. Where people are suppressed and not free to pick themselves up but need to be picked up and supported by others. It’s a society where others have “too much” and must be compelled to provide for others. It’s a Utopian vision of Society, leveling, a construct.

Take Healthcare. In order to address a problem of 10% of the population the Social Liberal will impose a “solution” on nearly 100%. Because of the “cost” to others undesirable behavior – obesity, excessive eating, types of foods, being uninsured – including inaction are now seen as being impactful on “the whole” and need to be curtailed. There cannot be a free marketplace because people don’t know better and need to be told the right way to do things, have a penalty imposed on them in order to comply. Failure to comply means the suppression of another’s “right” to healthcare.

If you speak to a Social Liberal about Healthcare they view it as a great leap forward never mind the great cost – clearly visible in countless other Countries, even our own Governmental budget – or erosion of personal liberties. It “imposes” fairness – how can that be bad? The fact that the Supreme Court found it Constitutional great – the fact that the Government can now tax you for inaction, totally acceptable. Social engineering on a grand scale.

The Second Amendment is a great example of the expendability of an established right by a Social Liberal. It’s an inherent freedom. It’s been upheld twice as a personal liberty extended to all US Citizens by the Supreme Court. When practiced by law abiding citizens it reduces crime and is nearly transparent. It’s a check and balance against a corrupt Government, another economic engine.

The Social Liberal believes that Guns are bad and you should not have them. They will work every day to take them away from you and everyone else no matter the cost or the chilling effect on that right.

It’s amazing how the same people who take the moral high ground on firearms and their impact on human life conveniently shift their moral perspective in other areas – classic Liberal moral flexibility. The definition of “IS”.

Substitute the First Amendment anywhere you would see the Second Amendment. There would be an open revolt even by the Social Liberal as it would prevent their message from being disseminated (as well as the ability to suppress others).

You are exactly right that the Government should not be involved in social engineering however a Social Liberal will tell you again and again – the Government, in many cases, is the only thing that can “do or control/make fair xyz for all people”. It’s a constant justification for Federalism, another anti-conservative practice.

Fiscal Conservatives believe in smaller Government and a basic set of operational guidelines. The result is a less costly Government less involved in the “day to day operations” of peoples lives. Social programs are very clearly massive Administrative undertakings with a ton of overhead, duplication and cost and are typically anathema to Fiscal conservative.

Social Programs – Social Security, SNAP, MediCare, HealthCare, etc. – are massively costly. That is absolutely undeniable. Gun registries, bans, etc. are also massively costly. They also absolutely ensure that you pay for other peoples choices while being able to order them around. It’s the worst of both worlds wrapped up in the Nanny blanket of compassion and Utopia.

In closing…

I know this is a really long way to point out a few things. I really do appreciate your response, it’s candor and timeliness.

There are honest answers to questions, even to the most complex problems. Sometimes they are even simple. In group dynamics size limits function and focus. KISS applies.

Fiscal Conservatism and Social Liberalism are contradictory. You can’t want to make a bigger Government and make it cheaper, you can’t force people to do things and call it Freedom and Equality and you can’t create Rights while suppressing established ones.

That wasn’t much of an honest response, that wasn’t much of a response at all. Your reasoning is just “you cannot,” which isn’t reasoning. What am I, and other small government conservatives then? It’s not the government’s place to engage in social engineering. Whether that be by limiting the size of soft drinks we can buy, or banning internet gambling. “Free” government issued birth control is just as coercive on our actions as a blanket ban on birth control. I should be able to own a gun without fear that the government will come and take me away, and I should be able to smoke what I wish without fear that the government will come and take me away. I don’t see how these views are incompatible with fiscal conservatism.. It’s all about liberty. I should be able to make choices for myself without the government’s permission and without the government’s assistance. I shouldn’t have to pay for anyone else’s choices, but I shouldn’t be allowed to order them around like slaves.

I totally agree conservatives need to be consistently active in promoting our viewpoint but good luck finding ears, hearts or even minds open enough to listen.

There is a part of me that believes our consistent, steadfast ways will win the day but understand what you are trying to say. Right now, at this time in history all may be lost if we are complacent.