Obamacare

Social Cons Who Heart the Pledge

|

The force runs strongly through him.

The GOP's PDF is earning applause from some on the right who think "strengthening the family" is a pressing federal policy issue in 2010. Ralph Reed, come on down!

Significantly, House Republicans rejected the false choice between tea-party issues like cutting spending and delimiting government and pro-family issues like honoring marriage and protecting unborn life. For some strange reason, the media and some in the GOP think the two agendas are incompatible. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the exact opposite is true. Pro-family candidates are the most likely to be fiscal conservatives, and tea-party candidates are most likely to be pro-life. Witness Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Marco Rubio, and Christine O'Donnell. How come every time we scratch a tea-party candidate we find a social conservative and a person of deep faith? Could it be that the notion of limiting government and maximizing freedom presupposes a citizenry animated by virtue, faith, and reliance on God? That's certainly what the Founders believed. How refreshing that the House GOP agrees.

Can I get a Newt "don't-cut-entitlements" Gingrich?

[T]he reform Republicans offer a choice between the job killing, big government, high tax agenda of the Democratic Party and a Republican Party agenda to reverse out-of-control spending, restore fiscal accountability leading to a balanced budget, create confidence in the private sector to spur new job creation, and strengthen the family.

How about Marjorie Dannenfelser, of the Susan B. Anthony List?

Today, in its 'Pledge to America' the pro-life Republican House leadership has echoed the voices of pro-life Americans calling for a Congress that will protect Life. The pro-life legislative priorities included in their Pledge reinforce Republican Party unity as we approach these critical mid-term elections.

American Principles Project founder Robert P. George:

What we demanded of the GOP was a firm and clear commitment to marriage, life, and the free and full participation of faith-based institutions in our public life. We got it. Our goal was not to shift the focus of the "Pledge" to social issues, but to make sure that the GOP's longstanding pro-life and pro-marriage commitments were not abandoned, compromised, or passed over in silence.

We need to co-opt that, somehow

Yuval Levin:

The first thing that strikes me (especially in comparing this Pledge to the Contract With America) is how much progress pro-lifers have made both in the arena of public opinion and the intra-Republican debate on the abortion question. The Contract avoided the subject like the plague. This document speaks plainly of a commitment to human life several times, lists abortion funding as a key reason for repealing Obamacare, and promises a government-wide Hyde Amendment.

Related Timothy P. Carney: "Tea Partiers Oppose Abortion, Not Just Deficits." And Rep. Paul Ryan: "The Cause of Life Can't be Severed from the Cause of Freedom." And to be sure, not all social cons are jazzed.

I am pretty much the opposite of a social conservative, and will never forget the nadir that was Terri Schiavo conservatism, so none of this exactly tickles my ivories. On the other hand, as awkward as it is for me to admit, some of the most social of cons tend to be the most fiscal of cons, too.

But I think the big takeaway here is the yawning chasm between the Pledge to America and the Contract From America. The latter document, which is a product of Tea Party concerns instead of electoral coalition management, is short, sweet (if on the vague side), and marriage-strengthening-free:

1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an "All-of-the-Above" Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

I hope, but don't know, that the restive, Democrat-repudiating mood in the country reflects the Contract much more than the Pledge. But the disparity between the two is an always-welcome reminder that the two major parties are reliably incapable of translating strong grassroots sentiment into public policy that acts on it. Democrats are finding that out the hard way this fall, in the various "hippie punching" wars between the snippy White House and a base dissatisfied with pot, Gitmo, war, ObamaCare, and more. Republicans will likewise rediscover the phenomenon if they don't start taking government-downsizing seriously.

Bonus self-linking: Me in 2005 on "The Gingrich Legacy," in which I detail the serial libertarian disappointments with the 1994 GOP revolution, and conclude:

Jackass

The Republicans located and attracted a new base of voters with bomb-throwing rhetoric that only happened to include some limited-government ideas (hardly surprising, considering the party had been out of government for so long).

The key to maintaining that base, besides the usual vote-buying that every governing party engages in, has been to keep the bombs coming, not to follow up on any of the limited-government promises (with the notable exception of welfare reform). […]

This, finally, might just be the fruit of '94—a base mobilized not to reduce the scope of government, but to jeer at domestic enemies, conflate opposition to war with treason, and vote decisively against Michael Moore.

That self-described libertarians spend more time on these pursuits than noticing how their ideals continue to be mocked by the party they vote for is a testament to the alluring power of party-based populism. That Democratic activists seem eager to emulate key parts of this approach is a reason to curb your enthusiasm about the day when the Gingrich legacy gets the whipping it so richly deserves.

Advertisement

NEXT: Bono and Buttman

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “the GOP’s longstanding pro-life and pro-marriage commitments were not abandoned, compromised, or passed over in silence.”

    Surely all of those GOP-leaning libertarians that rush to post on the gay marriage threads that government needs to get out of marriage altogether will show up and heap their scorn on the GOP for wanting the government to take “pro-marriage” policy stances now.

    Surely…

    1. Surely you don’t mean these Libertarians?

      http://www.outrightusa.org/issues.html

    2. Newt Gingrich is full of shit. Will that do?

    3. Surely all of those GOP-leaning libertarians that rush to post on the gay marriage threads

      Surely you have a list of these people.

      Surely…

        1. Surely you have a list of these people.

          Surely…

      1. John
        RobC
        RCDean

        And that’s just from memory. Sure that an exhaustive SugarFree-level search would shake out some more names.

      2. I don’t. And stop calling me Shirley.

    4. Consider my scorn heaped. Really large amounts of scorn, too, not just mild indignation, since talking about following the Constitution and then about Congress intervening in all these non-enumerated powers is a logic fail.

      Not particularly surprised at this development, though — see Matt’s wonderfully snarky comment about “electoral coalition management”. If the Republicans lose their significant edge among the religious fanatics, they’ll likely remain the minority party, since fiscal conservatives alone do not compose anything remotely close to 50.1% of the electorate.

      1. Have you no idea of the extent to which marriage between a man and woman (only) affects interstate commerce? Not even to begin to mention the horrific and heinous effect on interstate commerce of the marriage between (*shudder* *gag*) two people of the SAME SEX!! Ye gods, man, for what possible reason do you think the federal government was created, other than to dictate who gets to marry who?

  2. I know the local tea party has already started looking over the Nov.2nd fence and is devising an “accountability” strategy to monitor the elected officials’ compliance with their campaign rhetoric and will launch 2012 primary campaigns against those who don’t walk the walk.

  3. Wasn’t Newt Gingrich the epitome of GOP hypocrisy when he was having an extramarital affair during the Clinton-Lewinsky investigations. I can’t believe people take him seriously on family matters.

    1. But the people of Georgia elected Gingrich because he was a small government conservative, not to be a moral compass. Nothing to see here, people…

      1. …and he turned out to be neither.

        Maybe just a small glimmer of something to see.

  4. Great another book with that fat sack of shit on the cover…how much more must America endure??

    1. He had the good sense to leave himself off the cover of his very readable Civil War alternative history novels.

      1. I don’t care if he sticks to fiction….!

        Oh wait he has a new book out, Saving America,…. another alternative history?

        Sorry my mistake.

  5. YES, sign me up as a member of the Libertarian Party. To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

  6. Is there some strongly entrenched anti-marriage lobby that I’m unaware of? Or is “pro-marriage” a euphemism for “WE NEED TO STOP TEH GHEYS”?

    1. We have our meetings right after the ‘We hate the children’ coalition

      1. If gays are accepted into mainstream society and given full equality under the law, men will leave their families in droves to hang out at bath houses and engage in serial sodomy while homos are given access to teach their perverted lifestyle in the schools.

        We need the government to protect us from this apocalyptic scenario. It’s for the children.

    2. “Pro-marriage” as used here is a euphemism (or perhaps just an attempt at brevity) for a lot of stuff, gay-bashing being part of it.

      1. Sort of the way “family values” were said to be a way of opposing feminism.

  7. Apparently they missed the comments from independents who said that they were more likely to vote Republican if they laid off the social/family values issues.

    1. Social conservatives literally believe that America is God’s Chosen Country and the only thing that is preventing the world from collapsing into evil. Therefore, we need to implement Judeo-Christian theology into law so we can be a shining beacon of goodness to the world and stop the Commies/Muslims/Gays (aka agents of Satan).

      1. And it worries me a hell of a lot more than Sharia, who as someone here pointed out, social conservatives would support if marketed under a Jesus loving, bible observing family values fig leaf.

        1. Damn, that’s crappy grammer.

          1. Crappy spelling, too, in addition to the * grammar * fail. 😉

            If you were here in Hawaii, you could blame it on being not sufficiently caffeinated, it still being early am.

        2. “And it worries me a hell of a lot more than Sharia,”

          Really? Do the social cons threaten to kill you and force the FBI to go into hiding when you have “everyone draw Jesus day”? But what do the social cons do besides annoy you. The radical Muslims will kill you. They don’t need the law. They can just get what they want through intimidation. And if you think that is an exaggeration, explain to me why that woman in Seattle went into hiding. That is Seattle not London or Cairo.

          1. There is 0% chance of Sharia Law being implemented in the US in my lifetime.

            There is a chance that the Drug War will continue, that people’s personal lives will be invaded by moral nanny-staters, and that good policy and freedom will take a backseat to religious superstition and moral busybodies. In fact, that is the current state of America. The leap from “Jesus/The Bible said we should do a thing” to “We need a law so that people will do a thing” is not very far at all.

            1. The Drug war is supported by a lot more than just Christians. And while there is 0% chance that sharia law will be implemented by law. There is a 100% chance that I will effectively have to risk my life to publicly engage in anything that those nuts consider blasphemy. The woman in Seattle proves that. That is a real threat to our freedom. Libertarians don’t see it because they buy into the PC idea that brown people could never hurt us.

              1. There is also a 100% chance that you would have to risk your life to be an abortionist.

                If the question is “Who is more likely to be able to use state power in the US to negatively impact my life?” it’s literally no contest at all. You can try to offset that with the about-as-likely-as-getting-hit-by-lightning threat of terrorism, but that’s not much of an offset for anyone who understands statistics.

                1. “There is also a 100% chance that you would have to risk your life to be an abortionist.”

                  I would say the risk is pretty small. there have been what two murders of abortionists in this country in the last 20 years if that? I can only think of two. Am I missing any. But I can think of a lot more murders in this country by radical Muslims. And I am not just talking about 9-11. I would point to the numerous honor killings that have happened in the last few years. I would point to the woman in Seattle having to go into hiding. As a comparison, has any pro abortion journalist ever had to go into hiding in this country?

                  Then there is the Fort Hood incident and the incident in Arkansas where the guy shot up the recruiting center. Imagine if someone walked into an abortion clinic and killed a few dozen people. You would be having a heart attack on here.

                  Yet, a Muslim does it and it is like it never even happened. I don’t understand why you won’t admit radical Islam is a danger. They have killed a lot more people than conservative Christians have in this country. But you are scared shitless of them.

                  1. I agree, people who act on their radical beliefs by hurting and killing people who disagree with them are definitely dangerous. How do you plan on stopping this?

                2. “”If the question is “Who is more likely to be able to use state power in the US to negatively impact my life?” it’s literally no contest at all.””

                  None whatsoever.

                  The GOP uses the Christian folk for their ends. They claim the right to life is from God. Yet, they agree that government should be able to terminate that right in the name of punishment. Therefore government not God gets the final say on the right to life.

                  Government > God.

                3. If the question is “Who is more likely to be able to use state power in the US to negatively impact my life?” it’s literally no contest at all

                  Absolutely correct. I will soon not be able to buy incandescent bulbs, or have a shower that has more than one head–just like I have to flush twice. And I buy music with warning labels, and can’t speak freely on public school campuses. Can’t use trans-fats–and soon, my salt will be a regulated commodity, and I’ll be punatively taxed for drinking a soda. Fortunately, I’m still able to stand on the sidewalk and smoke, for now–but I gotta watch the smoking because if I get too close to a quran, the president might get annoyed.

                  I can keep going. Ity’s pretty clear that, while the Christian Right might make noises about what’s ‘moral’ and what’s not, the left is passing laws limiting what I can do—and the left is very into Islam these days, so, I’d say that right now, with them in power, sharia(implemented under a thousand different names, each one claiming to not be what it is) is far more likely than some kind of Christian theocracy(unless the left can use a Christian theocracy to seize permanent power)

                  1. Are you for real?

                    Bush signed the law banning lightbulbs.

                    The right supports using the FCC to dictate what can be said on TV.

                    A republican govenor signed a law that makes it an offense to smoke in the car with children in Arkansas.

                    More importantly, unless you’re partisan, you would know neither the Rs or Ds promote freedom.

                    “”and the left is very into Islam these days””

                    With a statment like that, I guess I can’t expect you to have a clue.

              2. There is a 100% chance that you will risk your life if you go into a biker bar and call them all a bunch of fags. So are bikers a real threat to our freedom?

                Sometimes people get insulted and react with physical violence. Murder and assault are already illegal, I’m not sure what you propose is the solution. Some groups respond to insult by using force, and they face legal consequences for those actions.

                1. “I’m not sure what you propose as the solution.”

                  1. “I’m not sure what you propose as the solution.”

                    The solution is you lock up the people who threaten others. I am not proposing a solution to either problem. I am just pointing out that there are other threats in the world beyond the dreaded Christians.

                2. Not being able to go into a biker bar and call them fags is an imposition on my freedom. But it is a pretty small one. And yeah, the bikers suck. But again, it is a pretty small. Not being able to draw a picture of Muhamad or do anything these nuts consider to be blasphemy is a real threat to freedom.

                  And further, you analogy doesn’t work. The woman in Seattle was a journalist. What if biker gangs started threatening journalists who wrote bad stories about them and they were so effective journalists who did had to go into hiding? You don’t think that would be a big problem? You don’t think that wouldn’t justify cracking down on the biker gangs responsible? And if they were allowed to get away with it, you don’t think such a situation would not be a real blow to freedom?

                  1. Of course, those that committed a crime should be arrested.

                    Cracking down on all biker gangs because one self-identified member decided take it upon himself to commit a crime? No.

                    And to get back to your example, I’m not sure how one is supposed to stop an imam across the world from calling for the blood of a blasphemer. I’m not sure how you stop a local fanatic from acting on it. What’s your solution?

                    1. Send the imam across the world a cruise missile with his name and address on it. Kill enough of them and the rest of them will decide that threatening US citizens is a really bad idea. That is really all only alternative. You can’t reason with people like that. And the more you try to accommodate them, the bolder they will become.

                    2. Right, we all know that cruise missiles are very discriminate weapons and will only kill people that are universally known as Bad Guys and could never possibly enrage the hordes of fanatics.

                      Also, you’re the lawyer John, if some guy said “Someone should kill John!” and you shot him dead on the spot, is that legal? Is it even just?

                    3. I think if I openly advocate the murder of someone and have a reasonable expectation that someone will in fact go through with my instructions, I am guilty. It is analogous to a mob boss. If the boss says “someone ought to do something about that rat” knowing that his cappos will know what to do, he has committed murder.

                      And as far as cruise missiles, if someone is openly advocating the death of an American citizens on US soil, they have effectively declared war on the country. As far as I am concerned they are an open target.

                  2. The Hell’s Angels did eventually kick the crap out of Hunter Thompson.

              3. The Drug war is supported by a lot more than just Christians. And while there is 0% chance that sharia law will be implemented by law. There is a 100% chance that I will effectively have to risk my life to publicly engage in anything that those nuts consider blasphemy. The woman in Seattle proves that. That is a real threat to our freedom. Libertarians don’t see it because they buy into the PC idea that brown people could never hurt us.

                No, they think the brown people can hurt us when they’re wearing a police uniform.

                More or less, radical libertarians don’t make a stink about crime because they think everyone else will do that, so they focus on what others don’t. And the less popular the concern, the better.

            2. There is a chance that the Drug War will continue, that people’s personal lives will be invaded by moral nanny-staters…

              Like how pot in CA is being handled, or outlawing salt in restaurants, or smoking basically anywhere, or making me buy a particular kind of insurance?

              People don’t need the Bible to think they are qualified to run other people’s lives.

          2. Since I’m gay, I’m sure the social cons would love the go-ahead to kill me, probably in some brutally disgusting way.

        3. And it worries me a hell of a lot more than Sharia…

          Why?

  8. Bonus self-linking

    Knock it off, Matt. Or you’ll go blind.

  9. I was hoping the alt text for the Gingrich book cover would read, “It’s a cookbook!!!”

  10. I am pretty much the opposite of a social conservative, and will never forget the nadir that was Terri Schiavo conservatism, so none of this exactly tickles my ivories.

    Death is only the beginning…”

    “Human life means nothing to me.”

    1. “Luke I am your father”.

  11. I remember GOP governance between January 2001 and January 2007.

    I don’t believe a thing they say about fiscal responsibility.

    And screw “Family Values” legislation.

    Third party is the only way to go.

    1. I think third rail is the only way to go. If you think about it, it’s the perfect metaphor.

  12. Why is Marco Rubio afraid of Alex Snitker?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXh-JFF5XPg

  13. On the other hand, as awkward as it is for me to admit, some of the most social of cons tend to be the most fiscal of cons, too.

    Unfortunately for me, who is not socially conservative either, it is true.

  14. I don’t quite get how someone who goes through wives like the rest of us go through cars could be shameless enough to call themselves a “social conservative”. I really don’t care who Gingrich is married to. But the disconnect between his life and his whoring out to the social conservative cause drives me up the wall. There is just no way he believes any of that stuff. If he did, how could he behave like he does privately.

    1. He believes in the GOP winning elections. His private views on morality, if actually publically admitted, would hinder his over-riding goal. Hence the hypocrisy.

      That, or a lot of denial going on between the schism of what he was most likely raised to believe, and what economists term the “revealed preferences” for his actual behavior.

      1. It’s always a shame to me to see Newt pander like this. Am I the only one that remembers his response to Clinton’s state of the union where he held up the lightbulb (?) and talked about innovation and technology? He was very intelligent sounding, I thought, hey, the GOP finally has an intellectual at its top. Of course the next day everyone said his response was a flop…The man is very smart, it’s a real shame to see him do this sort of stuff.

  15. How come every time we scratch a tea-party candidate we find a social conservative and a person of deep faith?

    Maybe because lying GOP social con scumbags decided to hijack the Tea Party movement in order to reinvigorate the fading fortunes of their scumbag party?

    1. How do you highjack a decentralized movement. It sucks but Matt is right. A lot of people who are fiscally conservative are also socially conservative. The question is what are you going to do about it? I don’t think pretending it is not true and that the Tea Party was highjacked really helps. It is what it is. It is not a libertarian movement. As a group, the Tea Party people disagree with Libertarians about the border, the war and a most social issues. But they also agree with Libertarians about a lot of things to. And it is a really big movement. Is it really smart to just ignore them?

      And even if you are right, doesn’t that say bad things about Libertarians? If the social cons are so stupid and the Libertarians so smart, why did the Libertarians let a small group of social cons high jack the first small government mass political movement this country has ever seen? Why the hell aren’t the social cons sitting around bitching about how the scumbag libertarians hijacked the Tea Party?

      1. A lot of libertarians are part of the Tea Party movement, which so far has mostly manifested itself as being about fiscal libertarianism, or as much as anything that decentralized can “manifest” anything.

        1. Do you get the “decentralized” talking point directly from FreedomWorks HQ?

          1. Heehaw. Heehaw. Heehaw heehaw.

      2. What am I going to do about it?

        Baby, all I have to do is wait.

        You don’t think that we’ll all be talking about how so-and-so Tea Party figure is a lying scumbag in, oh, about 18 months? You don’t think there are more Gingriches out there?

        Until then I’ll just keep on poisoning the well.

        1. What good does it do to poison the well? All that does is give the Tony’s of the world more ammunition. And of course there will be some Tea Party figure who turns out to be a scumbag. But so what? Politicians always are. That is why you can’t put any faith in them. But that doesn’t mean you can’t do some good sometimes.

          1. “What good does it do to poison the well? All that does is give the Tony’s of the world more ammunition.”

            Maybe because libertarians are, and should be, as worried about giving the John’s of the world ammunition as they are the Tony’s of the world…

            1. Oh Shut the Fuck up MNG. You are no more Libertarian than I am. And philosophically you are no different than Tony. You are just more dishonest than he is.

              1. Well, that is my point. I’m not a libertarian (I don’t pretend to be), but neither are you, or Tony. People who are libertarians should be skeptical of “your kind” as well as “mine”.

                1. So I guess concern troll is concerned. I will remember that.

      3. “”It sucks but Matt is right. A lot of people who are fiscally conservative are also socially conservative. The question is what are you going to do about it? I don’t think pretending it is not true and that the Tea Party was highjacked really helps.””

        I agree with John and Fluffy.

        The conclusion is that the Tea Party is nothing special. Just more rhetoric, and empty promises.

        Part of the empty promises will be the fact that they will be junior Senators and Reps with little to no power to make their promises happen. When you fire people up about change, they are fairly impatient about it. The Tea Pary folk risk looking like lame ducks.

        1. Just so, and by the time they get any power, they’ll have been molded into good little Republicans because that’s how things work in Washington.

  16. “On the other hand, as awkward as it is for me to admit, some of the most social of cons tend to be the most fiscal of cons, too.”

    If they support endless wars in America and abroad I honestly don’t care if they cut the budget by 2% or vote against the bridge to nowhere…

  17. I would hereby like to petition Matt to change the alt-text on Newt’s visage to say “Newt is short for Newcular Titties.”

    Thank you.

    1. I was extremely disappointed to see not a single Newcular Titties comment on the Kate Perry/Sesame Street thread.

      Won’t someone please think of the children?!?

      1. We had to be circumspect, as revealing Ms. Perry’s support of Gingrich’s campaign at this time would be premature.

        1. What does circumcision have to do with it?

    2. I second the matter!

    3. a google search for Newcular Titties Gingrich shows that his new name is becoming quite popular. I support Newcular Titties for president 2012

      1. I am unhappy that Matt has not corrected the alt-text. I’ve sent money to the foundation! I’ve subscribed! I allowed them to put my apartment on a cover! I’ve been commenting here since the early Aughts! I demand satisfaction!

          1. A satisfying sandwich!

  18. The “pledge” is an embarrassment to civilization.

    If they would have simply written “we pledge to loot the treasury and give it all to our corporate daddy bears, then enjoy a tall scotch and soda” at least they would have been honest.

    1. corporate daddy bears

      I know you’re out and all, but drop anchor before you fly away, please.

      1. I will literally fuck your shit up.

    2. If they would have simply written “we pledge to loot the treasury and give it all to our corporate daddy bears, then enjoy a tall scotch and soda” at least they would have been honest.

      And this differs from Obama administration policies how?

      1. “we pledge to loot the treasury and give it all to our union masters, then enjoy a tall soy latte”

    3. corporate daddy bears

      WTF, Tony? Why are you conflating (gay) bears with corporatism? Finally gone round the bend, eh?

    4. Re: Tony,

      If they would have simply written “we pledge to loot the treasury and give it all to our corporate daddy bears, then enjoy a tall scotch and soda” at least they would have been honest.

      Or, rather, they would be Democrats.

      1. Or, rather, they would be Democrats.

        Actually they would be Democrats Republicans and Libertarians.

        Let’s stop pretending like the GOP and the Koch funded “libertarians” are anything other than corporate whores , OK?

        The GOP & Libertarians are the biggest corporate whores around, followed closely by the Democrats.

        1. Who are you calling corporate whore, asshole? The more corporate money in Democratic coffers the less the corporations have, and how can that not be a good thing?

          ChicagoTom, huh? I think I probably know you.

        2. ‘EY! Don’t lump Libertarians with libertarians! That small ‘l’ crap drives me insane!

    5. Re: Tony,

      The “pledge” is an embarrassment to civilization.

      “…But the entitlement mentality – that is a civ builder like no other!!! Yipee!!!”

  19. I’ve never been mistaken for a social-conservative, but when it comes to legislators, it’s just true:

    the ones with any courage and backbone to really attack statism are typically also really hard-core pro-lifers.

    It’s also true that when you hear the media describe a Republican as “socially moderate, but fiscally conservative” they are always talking about some Olympia Snowe-Mike Castle type who’s spent an entire career on the dole trying to get more gubmint into every orafice they can find.

    1. How is restricting who can marry whom and what a woman can do with her body not statism?

  20. Listen up, SoCons, you may or may not have some really ‘groovy’ ideas concerning abortion and euthanasia, and what have, but it doesn’t matter any longer. You don’t have a choice about priorities any longer, because we are out of money. If you are talking about anything else than increasing our economic productivity, dealing with sovereign debt, and incarcerating libtard economic obstructionist, you are wasting your breath.

  21. Yeah, a lot of fiscal cons are social cons. It probably has something to do with the fact that they have an attachment to olde schoole civil society (in the form of their church, etc.), which is threatened by the Total State.

    To generalize grossly:

    Civil society, which is the true counterweight to a Total State, tends to be tradtional institutions for the most part, meaning it tends to be socially conservative.

    People who are fed up with the encroachment of the Total State are fed up because it threatens something they value. So, no surprise that a lot of the fed up people in the Tea Parties have a lot of social con leanings.

    Which is fine, as long they keep their fiscal con priorities straight. We libertarian types should be making every effort to work with them, as long as their priorities are straight, and they aren’t feeding us a line of bull on fiscal responsibility to get their people in office to pursue whack-job “family values” legislation.

    1. Their priorities aren’t straight, so I’m not working with them.

  22. i forgot as libertarians if we are supposed to for or against abortion.

    1. The Libertarian posistion is this: if you are against abortion, don’t have one.

  23. If a social con is also very pro-foreign interventionism, pro-homeland security, the war in terror and the war on drugs, it would seem that they are very far from being fiscally conservative.

    Keep pushing the social issues ad naseum, and yeah, the Dems will hold onto power a bit longer.

  24. I truly think that social conservatives are beginning to see that government is not an appropriate way to move their social concerns. They are seeing the democrats fail miserably and hearing a lot of interesting conversations about individual liberty because it is the thing to talk about since it largely supports the fiscally conservative ideals of economic liberty almost perfectly.

    Economic and social liberty are blending in the tea party and while it is taking some entrenched social conservative warriors a little longer than others to get the message, they are slowly getting it because they are more and more receiving signals from the libertarians in their midst (Beck, Napolitano and Stossal) about social liberty as it is more often being mixed with economic liberty signals that resonate deeply with the tea party. I have seen it already. Socially conservative people I know have been saying things like “I dont care what two men do with each other, that is their own business.” And similar such comments with regard to marijuana. The point is they are realizing that although they may be uncomfortable with certain things, social liberty gives them the freedom to avoid those things if they so choose.

    Abortion is a slightly different issue. MOST Americans do not support total abortion “rights” because at a certain point, it becomes infanticide, but most Americans also do not believe that abortion should be totally illegal, only a very loud fringe believe in this BS and since the current political movement is concerned with economic liberty, many politicians can quietly change their minds about this issue because they do not require the backing of the pro-life special interests.

    I think we are going to see that these tea party rebels are more libertarian than we think, or at least they are morphing their POV in that direction anyway.

  25. The GOP did this on purpose. The contrast between true conservatives and the GOP-establishment was intentional.

    The game is ‘Good Cop/Bad Cop’, and guess who the bad cop is?
    .

  26. Anal sodomy? Just google The First Scandal Adam and Eve.

  27. I’m a social as well as fiscal conservative, but I believe that social issues should be decided at the state level. If Texas want’s to ban Sodomy, but San Francisco doesn’t, then who cares. People will either move or try to change things. But the Federal spending is killing us, and if we don’t stop it NOW, then there will be no freedom’s left to argue about.

  28. Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    http://www.xn—-0mcg3at9ge.com
    This website is for travel to Malaysia
    http://www.xn—-0mcg3at9ge.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.