« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Video: Demint reconciles fiscal conservatism with social conservatism

I’m no one on Redstate, but I hope that someone that has some pull around here promotes this video.  I just found it extremely thought-provoking. Rave about the video and post it on the front page for me.

What Demint proposes here has HUGE potential.  The experience of the GOP in the 1970s, so I’m told, is one of a division between social and fiscal conservatism.  Demint argues very well that there is no such division, and that fiscal conservatism and really libertarianism (or at least limited government) is highly spiritual.  So if this is how the social conservatives feel, we have a great opportunity to see our tent not only become a big one, but a unified one.  If social conservatives can feel in their heart of hearts that reducing government, even a government that could allow them the mechanism to employ their values on others, is the right way to go, we’ll see an explosion of a spiritual libertarianism that will give us significant majorities among voters.

Think about it: most liberals who aren’t Maoist/Stalinist simply want freedoms: freedom to same-sex marry, freedom of expression without censorship, freedom to do drugs, freedom to be dirty, dirty hippies.  If social conservatives can reconcile themselves to those views within the context that minimizing government is the bigger goal, then there are few votes left to chase for the Leftists.

I happen to agree more so with this approach then before, because the government that can institute laws to dictate your views can just as easily dictate the opposite views.  The only answer is a limited government rendered powerless to dictate ANY views, and then let the folks persuade on the issues and let the states make those laws.  Drug use is bad?  Fine, permit it, then target drug users with your message.  Same sex marriage is bad?  Fine, permit it and convince gays not to marry.  Let freedom ring for all issues, for all sides, and renounce imposition of any views through federal government.  Let the states decide these questions, or the local governments, or individuals.

When you see what awful churn we’re in, and see how the Constitution in its near-divinity, the masterpiece of all governments, if followed, would have avoided these problems, you really have to have a deep and lasting amazement at our Founding Fathers.  I wish I named my kid Madison.

COMMENTS

  • acat

    …too many social conservatives don’t see a problem with government-enforced morality, preferring to see the nanny state as more of a nun or proctor, ensuring good behaviour by all regardless of whether they believe or not.

    This gets us so-called blue laws, like “can’t buy booze on Sunday” or “can’t be gay”, “can’t toke up”, or “can’t take pictures of that”… and the idea of personal liberty runs smack into this desire to grab the club and start swinging.

    Then there’s the problem that the fiscal conservatives sometimes have an intellectual, elitist bent – I’ve heard the old Stalin “opiate of the masses” canard thrown from both the left *and* the right… and I can also say with some authority that the religious right, despite the command to forgive and forget, have rather long memories.

    Bringing the two sides together is a wonderful idea, and it could work .. but bringing these two sides together is not going to be easy – let’s not kid ourselves – but the upside would be *so* worth it.

    Mew

    • tankertodd

      The piece that is interesting is the notion that with freedom, the moralists can advance their way of thinking. But when morals are legislated, how then do folks have a choice? Further, as Dinesh D’Souza pointed out re: Saudi Arabia, morality imposed by law is not morality. Morality is based on choice. As some of us know directly, Saudi citizens may live to a moral code in their country but when they come to the US, some of them run buck wild. So who’s the moral person? The one not allowed to drink, or the person allowed to drink but chooses not to? Legislating morality seems every bit as silly, in the end, as legislating prices on pharmaceuticals, or prices on healthcare. Hopefully someone will convince me otherwise before I get into trouble :-)