Jim DeMint: “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”

posted at 9:21 pm on November 9, 2010 by Allahpundit

That’s the money line from tonight’s Fox News “12 in ’12″ presidential profile; skip ahead to 3:00 if you don’t want to watch it all. He made this same point, albeit in a more elaborate way, at the Values Voter Summit in September. Let me gently suggest that this bumper-sticker version is doing him no favors, since it can’t help but alienate every last libertarian who sees it. His idea, as explained in greater detail at the VVS, is that God and government are forever jockeying for position as moral beacons in the public’s imagination. The bigger government gets, the smaller God gets, and vice versa, so if you’re eager to shrink state bureaucracy and promote self-reliance, expect people to react by looking elsewhere for moral guidance — like, say, back to traditional Judeo-Christian values. Thus are all fiscal cons also social cons, whether wittingly or not. And in fairness, that idea isn’t completely out of left field: There is indeed a relationship between God and government in the average person’s mind, although the touchstone is security, not morality. The less stable a government is, apparently, the more one turns to faith for reassurance that everything will be okay. The universe requires order and one or the other will provide it psychologically. (The U.S. is a notable exception to the either/or rule.) Which makes me wonder, how many fiscal cons support shrinking government because it means greater freedom for its own sake and how many support it simply as a means of moving people over to a different security blanket that they prefer?

Originally, I thought this message was just something DeMint was pitching at Christian conservatives to convince them that the tea party’s libertarianism is overblown, that they’re still a cherished constituency despite the reordering of conservative priorities to favor spending over “values.” But now I think he means it, which makes me wonder. For instance, last I checked, Glenn Beck’s a fiscal conservative (and notably a fan of the idea of Americans turning back to God) but also … fine with gay marriage. DeMint himself, however, is not: He told Al Hunt last year that neither the feds nor state governments should have the power to legalize same-sex unions. Per his God/government dynamic, I would think he’d support getting government out of the marriage business altogether and trusting in Judeo-Christian morals to handle this problem, but he still supports state recognition of traditional marriage as far as I can tell. Likewise with his comments about how gays and unwed mothers don’t belong in the classroom. Said GOProud’s founder Chris Barron of that, “The idea that someone who says they believe in limited government would support the government weeding out gay teachers and unmarried sexually active female teachers simply defies logic.” So maybe our error here is in assuming that when DeMint says “fiscal conservatism,” he means it as a byword for “less government” universally. Maybe government that works to reinforce Judeo-Christian values is fine. I guess, like Mitch McConnell, we all have our exceptions to the master plan.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

since it can’t help but alienate every last libertarian who sees it.

Well that’s 317 votes we are never getting back! /

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 9:25 PM

The social and monetary costs to the country for the decline in moral values is ENORMOUS. I can relate to the point.

echosyst on November 9, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Though I disagree you can’t be fiscal conservative is you’re a social conservative, let’s be real here. It is social liberals or libertarians who are more likely to stray to the left, or vote for Obama, than social conservatives. A social conservative can usually be reliable to also be a fiscal conservative, or at least vote for one.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Demint’s mission seems to be to destroy a budding conservative / libertarian coalition.

lorien1973 on November 9, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Jim DeMint: “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”

Really, Jim?

I guess I’ll have to call the homeless shelters I give to and tell them to send my money back and tell all those freeloaders to get a damn job.

BacaDog on November 9, 2010 at 9:27 PM

I wonder if DeMint allows his wife to wear pants.

Mark1971 on November 9, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Demint’s wrong.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 9, 2010 at 9:29 PM

WRONG.

Fiscal Conservatives CAN to be Social Conservatives.

Social Conservatives SHOULD be Fiscal Conservatives.

DeMint, you had better pull back the reins on that runaway nag you keep flogging.

portlandon on November 9, 2010 at 9:29 PM

It’s always interesting to read an atheist trying to understand how people of faith think.

We may all be different, Allahpundit, since the spiritual world is the last frontier of individualism and subjective reality – but you are wrong anyway. Faith has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with morality.

disa on November 9, 2010 at 9:30 PM

The social and monetary costs to the country for the decline in moral values is ENORMOUS. I can relate to the point.

echosyst on November 9, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Don’t bother . The not so open minded here will just trash you.

They seem to forget the costs of everything liberalism has wrought could greatly be reduced with social con thinking.

Daemonocracy also makes a great point. I don’t trust many who call themselves libertarian. They’ll go Obama or whatever leftwinger toots their horn in a minute. You cannot count on them.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:30 PM

“The idea that someone who says they believe in limited government would support the government weeding out gay teachers and unmarried sexually active female teachers simply defies logic.”

The logic is sound actually, as long as he is talking about the public school system which is a government operation.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Grist for AP’s mill ‘o hits.

ericdijon on November 9, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Hmmmm. Bad move, Mister Tea Party.

Key West Reader on November 9, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Though I disagree you can’t be fiscal conservative is you’re a social conservative, let’s be real here. It is social liberals or libertarians who are more likely to stray to the left, or vote for Obama, than social conservatives. A social conservative can usually be reliable to also be a fiscal conservative, or at least vote for one.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Well, I don’t consider myself a social conservative and I voted for McCain, but I have to agree with you… social liberals and libertarians are often more prone to buying into the Democrats’ fearmongering about the “religious right” and similar nonsense.

I’ve never had anything bad to say about DeMint but he is dead wrong here.

Caiwyn on November 9, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Demint’s wrong.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 9, 2010 at 9:29 PM

That was deep.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Again, Allah’s rabid atheism clouds his mind and he misses the point. Conservatism is conservatism. There is no such thing as fiscal/social/political. Conservatism means small government. The “social” conservative wants govt out of the way.

BTW, before you crazed abortion fanatics start saying that social cons want to interfere with people by limiting abortion, conservatives believe the baby has the rights enumerated in the bill of rights too, and that it’s the abortion lovers who interfere with the life of the child.

Haunches on November 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Way to build that build that coalition Jim.

tetriskid on November 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Portlandon has made the best point yet.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:33 PM

I think DeMint’s point is better stated as “You can’t keep a socially liberal polity fiscally conservative.”

And he’s right. You can’t.

J.E. Dyer on November 9, 2010 at 9:33 PM

He is a moron.

thphilli on November 9, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Regardless of how this dynamic plays out… this is not the time for this discussion, Jim.

Philosophically, I’m probably somewhat in agreement with him… but let that argument come after we’ve restored some fiscal sanity to DC.

mankai on November 9, 2010 at 9:33 PM

So, which social conservative plank was being violated when the mortgage bubble burst? And the accelerating deficit? I’d like to know the cause-effect, with examples if possible, that connect our social problems with our current fiscal mess.

That fiscal issues have moral components doesn’t mean they are inextricably connected, one-to-one, to social issues. States should decide most of these moral agenda items, if anyone’s to decide them at all. Demint should be divesting power in these areas back to the states; instead, it sounds like he’s trying to extend the Federal government’s power.

Patrick Ishmael on November 9, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Where exactly did Demint say he favored weeding out gay teachers?

Haunches on November 9, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Given Bush’s track record, I’d say that the opposite is true!
Love ya Jim, but as the Rock would say: Shut yer mouth and know your role!

abobo on November 9, 2010 at 9:35 PM

I’m more than a little tired of the social conservative/libertarian nonsense. I stood up for social conservatives when the trendy thing to do was say they needed to be kicked out of the right, but the social conservatives need to quit forcing their beliefs on everyone. That Beck rally could have been much more successful, but making it all about religion was a huge mistake.

The problem is social conservatives still think the way to success is to work within government while allowing ot to retain power, when the real key to success is to take away government power, period.

clearbluesky on November 9, 2010 at 9:35 PM

BTW, before you crazed abortion fanatics start saying that social cons want to interfere with people by limiting abortion, conservatives believe the baby has the rights enumerated in the bill of rights too, and that it’s the abortion lovers who interfere with the life of the child.

Haunches on November 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Hence the name of the movement being “right to life”, it’s written right in our Constitution.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Haunches on November 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Explain how its small government conservatism to limit gays from marriage or arrest an ADULT for smoking some weed in the privacy of his own home?

thphilli on November 9, 2010 at 9:36 PM

I think DeMint’s point is better stated as “You can’t keep a socially liberal polity fiscally conservative.”

Charitably, I think he’s saying, “You can’t keep a fiscally liberal polity socially conservative.” Address the former and you end up addressing the latter whether you want to or not. Which again makes me wonder what’s the means here and what’s the end.

Allahpundit on November 9, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Do Libertarians have to have support on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE they believe in before they align with Conservatives?

Well – that’s their choice I suppose.

But the fact is – Social Conservatism really doesn’t infringe on liberty. The PRO-LIFE position is totally about preserving the liberty to LIFE for an unborn child. Gay Marriage is not marriage – by definition it is not marriage. Why would libertarians be upset that we don’t want to redefine a word that’s been in the dictionary for ages? Why would they be upset that no culture in the history of man has ever defined marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman?

Do Libertarians want to smoke dope or something? Well, Sarah Palin is a SoCon – and she’s for non-enforcement of marijuana laws. If Libertarians want to legalize Heroin – I’m sorry, but that’s not a good thing.

Jim DeMint IS AWESOME.

The way I see it – Libertarians can align themselves with Democrats if this very benign Social Conservatism isn’t to their liking. Maybe they’ll enjoy the Dimmocrits being in EVERY aspect of their lives. In their wallets, in their happy meals, in their health care plans, in their mortgages …

Seriously – what about the Social Conservative agenda is so distasteful that it makes Transfat Banning Global Warming Redistributionists MORE attractive to them?

HondaV65 on November 9, 2010 at 9:36 PM

He is only wrong in context. Individually, a person can be a complete social flake and still be fiscally responsible. The opposite can be true, that a complete prude can be a complete spendthrift. On the other hand, a society filled with no social mores, aka socially liberal, cannot possibly be fiscally responsible.

Remember that social liberalism says that people cannot be held to account for their inadequacies, no matter how completely self inflicted they may be. Unwed mother of 12? Society owes you lots of money to care for your babies. Male gay? Society owes you for the almost certain aids you will get in your lifetime. Artist who likes to make fun of religions other than islam? Society owes you money to create works of “art”. Getting a bit old in age? Society owes you a 30 or 40 year long vacation at the end of life, paid for in taxes from an ever dwindling worker pool. Not only that, but we also owe you every possible medical trick in the book to make sure you get every last day of that end of life paid vacation. You cannot be socially liberal while effectively being fiscally irresponsible. Liberal policies of spending and taxing are the net result of liberal social convictions.

astonerii on November 9, 2010 at 9:36 PM

But social conservatives can be fiscally liberal, just ask all the religious blacks and Hispanics who vote Democrat year after year.

RedRedRice on November 9, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Well, I don’t know about the Value Voters Summit, but I saw this tonight and the clip didn’t mention anything about religion. That could be the underlying basis on his premise but social issues are certainly not all based on religion – just ask every Liberal.

My take was that the government spends massive amounts of monies in handouts, and DeMint would rather empower people to reduce their need for such things. Ultimately, that will be fiscally prudent. If you’re for ever-increasing entitlement programs, you can’t be fiscally conservative.

Maybe I’m missing something…?

BKeyser on November 9, 2010 at 9:38 PM

“You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”

He’s obviously wrong…unless you consider what he probably meant to say:
“It doesn’t make sense for you to be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.”

itsnotaboutme on November 9, 2010 at 9:38 PM

He’s wrong. I know plenty of libertarians who support the ability to have an abortion just so long as they don’t have to pay for it. Not because they have a moral objection but because it’s not a legitimate expense for the government.

Now, that said, I’m sick of socially liberal libertarians who vote for Democrats over Republicans because the latter are “Bible-thumpers”, then bitch and moan when Democrats are fiscally insane.

amerpundit on November 9, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Actually the other day NRO’s Goldberg was on cspan and he scoffed off the notion of people that are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think his point was that many of these alleged fiscal conservatives aren’t even that conservative fiscally.

I think it all depends on your definition of socially liberal.

Live and let live is one thing. Injecting social liberalism into society via say public schools is another.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Explain how its small government conservatism to limit gays from marriage or arrest an ADULT for smoking some weed in the privacy of his own home?

Because neither are legal? If the PEOPLE, not the courts, would like to change those laws, that would be small govt. Dictating a change in the status quo through the courts or by govt fiat-regulations-is big govt.

Haunches on November 9, 2010 at 9:39 PM

HondaV65 on November 9, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Uber troll.

thphilli on November 9, 2010 at 9:39 PM

He is a moron.

thphilli on November 9, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Wow you changed my mind. As usual you are the typical Libertarian jerk.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Given Bush’s track record, I’d say that the opposite is true!
Love ya Jim, but as the Rock would say: Shut yer mouth and know your role!

abobo on November 9, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Bush still got thos tax cuts through which are saving our arses at the moment in this recession. He has a mixed fiscal record at best.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 9:40 PM

This kind of idiocy is why I will never trust the Republican Party.

NeighborhoodCatLady on November 9, 2010 at 9:40 PM

But social conservatives can be fiscally liberal, just ask all the religious blacks and Hispanics who vote Democrat year after year.

RedRedRice on November 9, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Indeed. There are also plenty of people who think gay marriage is a moral wrong yet want to take away everyone else’s money in order to pay the mortgage.

amerpundit on November 9, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Haunches on November 9, 2010 at 9:39 PM

So you support abortion as a small government initiative since a majority support it and it is legal. Interesting definition of small government you have.

thphilli on November 9, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Marriage is by definition between a man and woman.

I don’t care what gays do, or who they do, but don’t change the definition, find your own term!

The social issues should be left to the States as all powers not specifically granted to the federal Govt are reserved to the States!

Activist judges are not reliable in deciding law based on the constitutiopn rather than their personal preferences and here in IA we booted three of the supremes and will get the rest!

The Federal Govt must be severely curtailed in terms of power exerted over the States and the individual and the money it spends!

Govt by the people and for the People not by the Federal Beaurocracy for the Federal Beaurocracy!

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 9:40 PM

The two are not linked.

Hog Wild on November 9, 2010 at 9:41 PM

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Want a tissue?

thphilli on November 9, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Libertarianism is full of internal contradictions

jp on November 9, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Strange, cause the last time I checked, I was indeed a fiscal conservative (some would say rabidly so) and would fail many of the litmus tests for social conservative.

Demint? Yer demented.

Jim708 on November 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM

HondaV65 on November 9, 2010 at 9:36 PM

I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with you on anything.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Jim DeMint: “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”

Yes you can. I met a bunch of seriously wealthy business owners last weekend and every single one of them were fiscal conservatives who don’t like the social conservatism of the Tea Party (it’s there) and Republicans.

lexhamfox on November 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM

It’s probably pretty obvious where I stand on this issue.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Jim Demint is a Calvinist, read reformed theology to understand what he’s actually saying.

jp on November 9, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Libertarianism is full of internal contradictions

jp on November 9, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Care to elaborate?

Free markets, individual liberty. How do social cons square the circle of wanting to intrude on individual liberty?

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Yes you can. I met a bunch of seriously wealthy business owners last weekend and every single one of them were fiscal conservatives who don’t like the social conservatism of the Tea Party (it’s there) and Republicans.

lexhamfox on November 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM

what does making money have to do with fiscal conservatism????

jp on November 9, 2010 at 9:45 PM

So, which social conservative plank was being violated when the mortgage bubble burst? And the accelerating deficit? I’d like to know the cause-effect, with examples if possible, that connect our social problems with our current fiscal mess.

That fiscal issues have moral components doesn’t mean they are inextricably connected, one-to-one, to social issues. States should decide most of these moral agenda items, if anyone’s to decide them at all. Demint should be divesting power in these areas back to the states; instead, it sounds like he’s trying to extend the Federal government’s power.

Patrick Ishmael on November 9, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Ever hear of hard work? Sloth? Honesty? Theft? Hell yeh they are connected to the issues we have had with government and Wall Street. There are massive numbers of people that think they can take the fruit of others’ work either through theft or taxation. Social conservatism stands against these things. Open your mind. You social liberals are so close minded.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:45 PM

not an uncommon argument

Aquateen Hungerforce on November 9, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Jim Demint is a Calvinist, read reformed theology to understand what he’s actually saying.

jp on November 9, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Summary?

Patrick Ishmael on November 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Ahh, but one can be socially conservitive about some issues and not others. And that is why there are reportedly some 38,000 Christian denominations today. There no longer IS a single set of Christian social values.

That said, I think AP here is barking up a few wrong trees, as it is not at all likely that any Christians here are likely to take religious guidance from an avowed Athiest.

MikeA on November 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Demint is saying that nobody who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative stays that way very long. Eventually, the more you believe there are no hard and fast rules in life, the more of other people’s money you’ll help yourself to.

Look at Arnold. Mr “Feescallee conseerfatif but zociallee leeberal” turned into a lefty stooge in about 18 months.

I am a social con, and would deny gay marriage and affirm the right to life, and beyond that I’d leave people alone.

Don’t kill the defenseless unborn or elderly, and don’t seek state sanction for your sex life…

now go and seek your fortunes, people.

rightwingyahooo on November 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM

So you support abortion as a small government initiative since a majority support it and it is legal. Interesting definition of small government you have.

The majority do not support it if you count the millions and millions killed. I’m sure they would be opposed.

However, since it was made legal by judicial fiat not through the states then it should be reexamined. You potheads and homosexuals had that chance in CA and failed.

Haunches on November 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM

I think DeMint’s point is fairly simple and straightforward.

Do you want to live your life based on government laws and regulations or a shared sense of morality in your community, your state, and your country?

When government seeks to regulate everything, there is little need for morals.

huckleberryfriend on November 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM

It’s probably pretty obvious where I stand on this issue.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Hey, not necessarily. Wasn’t Rand Paul DeMint’s BFF and isn’t Rand Paul… er… libertarianish?

Eh, I sort of disagree with DeMint here, but I also see need for concern.

I guess in this age of Tea Partying, I’m all for fusion – just not RINOs.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM

We’re all candy ass rinos now!

lorien1973 on November 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Republicans win by NOT campaigning on social conservatism.

The electorate sees nothing wrong with social conservatives in office. They certainly do with those who make social conservativism a keystone in their campaigns.

Stupid argument both literally and rhetorically.

lansing quaker on November 9, 2010 at 9:47 PM

It’s probably pretty obvious where I stand on this issue.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Really?

I will make a guess. Then I will tell you to enjoy paying for the liberalism . Enjoy!!

Libertarians in general are so naive.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Let me gently sugges that this bumper-sticker version is doing him no favors, since it can’t help but alienate every last libertarian who sees it. His idea, as explained in greater detail

He is stating a simple truth. Mark Levin has a blurb about this in his book. Maintaning a social order is a tenant of conservatism. That social order is maintaned through instititions like religion and tradional family etc. The fact that some libertarian don’t like it well so what…
Do libatarians change any of there beleifs because conservatives don’t like it

kangjie on November 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Communists and Christians…they’ll never get it.

Karmi on November 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

This guy is really annoying. I bet he has a girl somewhere he is screwing. People like him usually do.

Chudi on November 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

All this crap about hunting down gay teachers or whatever is just baiting by the poster.

Ignore it. Nobody in the socon community wants to do anything like that, or talks about it.

And Huckster Huckabee doesnt count, since he lets dangerous criminals go free.

rightwingyahooo on November 9, 2010 at 9:49 PM

When government seeks to regulate everything, there is little need for morals.

huckleberryfriend on November 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Then you have what we see today. Fraud, theft, and cheating at massive levels.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Much ado about nothing.

The man has a right to his opinion, if you disagree with it – don’t vote for him.

Done.

Rebar on November 9, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Libertarians in general are so naive.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Be careful not to confuse idiots who call themselves libertarians with true libertarians. There is no way in hell a true libertarian would ever vote for a liberal. No way, no how, no matter how much dope they smoke.

We’re to the right of social cons.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 9:49 PM

“Yes you can. I met a bunch of seriously wealthy business owners last weekend and every single one of them were fiscal conservatives who don’t like the social conservatism of the Tea Party (it’s there) and Republicans.

lexhamfox on November 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM”

Individuals can square the circle on this, but as a nation or a society, you cannot be both socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

astonerii on November 9, 2010 at 9:49 PM

That’s the money line from tonight’s Fox News “12 in ’12″

I think it just went to “11 in ’12″

sherry on November 9, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Communists and Christians…they’ll never get it.

Karmi on November 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

What? You’re not going to reason with them? You just give up? Meh.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Ever hear of hard work? Sloth? Honesty? Theft? Hell yeh they are connected to the issues we have had with government and Wall Street. There are massive numbers of people that think they can take the fruit of others’ work either through theft or taxation. Social conservatism stands against these things. Open your mind. You social liberals are so close minded.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Huh? I said there are moral components to economic issues, but that they don’t really fit exclusively into a social conservative nexus.

I simply asked that you name one social conservative issue that caused our present economic predicament. “Greed” is no more a social conservative issue than it is a social liberal issue. (“Greedy Halliburton! Greedy Republicans!” etc.)

And what makes you think I’m a “closed minded” “social liberal”?

Patrick Ishmael on November 9, 2010 at 9:50 PM

This guy is really annoying. I bet he has a girl somewhere he is screwing. People like him usually do.

Chudi on November 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Nah . Projection. Feel better soccer boy?

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:50 PM

It’s called federalism and constitutionalism. It worked to deal with every “social issue” we’ve ever had in this country, from slavery to gay marriage. You can have fiscal conservatism and social choice at the state level.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD?

cpaulus on November 9, 2010 at 9:50 PM

This guy is really annoying. I bet he has a girl somewhere he is screwing. People like him usually do.

Chudi on November 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

You are the caricature, not Sen. DeMint.

itsnotaboutme on November 9, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Here we go again.

ronsfi on November 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM

I guess in this age of Tea Partying, I’m all for fusion – just not RINOs.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM

I totally agree. But, in general, libertarians are more tolerant and accepting of social con agendas than the other way around. Social cons hate us.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Good job, DeMint. You’ve just won a historic election by staying away from social issues that have been used to break up the Fiscal/SoCon alliance, and one of the first things you do is try to dictate who can be in your club. Keep going down this path, and the many libertarians out here will sit out 2012 or vote for the Libertarian Party. Stay on message about fiscal discipline. I don’t care about your pet issues regarding DADT, gay marriage, abortion, or whatever, because they’re NOT IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW. Way to give the Donks easy ammunition. Idiot.

Badger in KC on November 9, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Allah, one of your best posts in a long time.

SouthernGent on November 9, 2010 at 9:53 PM

HondaV65 on November 9, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Uber troll.

thphilli on November 9, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Wow as is typical thphilli you just totally destroyed a poster’s argument/sarc

Good work./

Like a liberal you think you are so smart and so righteous. Hilarious.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:53 PM

It’s called federalism and constitutionalism. It worked to deal with every “social issue” we’ve ever had in this country, from slavery to gay marriage. You can have fiscal conservatism and social choice at the state level.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD?

cpaulus on November 9, 2010 at 9:50 PM

I don’t know if I’d say that Federalism worked when it came to Slavery; though, I do think there was a Constitutional argument that slavery was not Constitutional and given the American version of Federalism, the states all would have had to follow that decision.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 9:53 PM

watching that interview makes me even sadder that Ken Buck lost. What a waste Colorado was in the election, it bothers me even more than reid winning and Murky being ahead in Alaska because it’s a state we should have won but lost because of a completely screwed Governor’s race. Buck would have been an awesome Senator.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Social cons hate us.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Haahhahaa

Meet tphilli or whatever the douche bags name is. You gotta be kidding me.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Well, this gives me a reason to finally hit the unsubscribe button on his annoying emails.

See you in church, Jim.

The Ugly American on November 9, 2010 at 9:55 PM

The point has been made in other terms in this thread but . . .
I doubt one will be a reliable “fiscal conservative” if that one is not also a “social conservative.’
The most powerful “self-interest” (libertarian type, personal) will trump fiscal conservatism (in the government — it’s too remote and theoretical) in the real world (regardless of what they profess at CATO).

rebuzz on November 9, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Summary?

Patrick Ishmael on November 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM

start with the Puritans and their beliefs, which still shadow over American culture, manifested in different ways.

jp on November 9, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Philosophically, I’m probably somewhat in agreement with him… but let that argument come after we’ve restored some fiscal sanity to DC.

mankai on November 9, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Amen, Mankai.

Key West Reader on November 9, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Individuals can square the circle on this, but as a nation or a society, you cannot be both socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

astonerii on November 9, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Pssst the libertarians truly believe they won’t have to pay for it. Thus the naivety I spoke of.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:56 PM

I totally agree. But, in general, libertarians are more tolerant and accepting of social con agendas than the other way around. Social cons hate us.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM

I don’t know. I think really, you lie somewhere in the middle where a lot of self-identified socons might also put themselves. You’re willing to disagree without simply referring to them as religious bigots. There are a lot of people (especially on the interwebs) that like talking crap about libertarians or social conservatives; but I think if you look at the average conservative, you’ll find they have a libertarian leaning with a socially conservative point of view. I don’t find libertarianism and social conservatism incompatible. But to quote the great AnninCA that’s just my 2 cents.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM

what non-belierves fail to understand is that a society will have moral irregardless of religion. and if the morals do not come from religion it will come from government and if its not christianity, it will be islam, or jewish, or hindu, or whichever religion.

Like government Organized religion is a necessary evil. Now god is different but its the ORGANization (i.e the church, the mosque etc where the problems come in because they too like government are built by man.

Limited power is always the first best alternative to all forms of power be it government or religion.

and the mor elocal control the better.

unseen on November 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM

You gotta be kidding me.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Really? Take a look at the comments on this thread. Libertarians are so naive. Libertarians are used by liberals. All 317 libertarians.

You still can’t tell me why I’m giddy with joy to get rid of a liberal nanny only to embrace a social conservative nanny. I want both of them out of my wallet and out of my life.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM

start with the Puritans and their beliefs, which still shadow over American culture, manifested in different ways.

jp on November 9, 2010 at 9:56 PM

No offense, but did you just crawl out of pelosihole?

Key West Reader on November 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM

So what’s the message now? I need to rewrite my sign.

“Get Government out of my way and quit passing laws that limit my freedom and choices at every turn jackholes”

*”Unless you’re telling me how to live and attempting to micromanage society to be more ‘good’; then go right on ahead and pass laws to limit freedoms, make government bigger, and get in my way”.

So why exactly should my goal of making government smaller include a provision to make it larger and more intrusive again?

I’m still not 100% sure I get the concept here, yes you seem to think it should be mandatory; but it seems like dieting, exercising more, and eating an entire pie after every meal.

gekkobear on November 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM

I totally agree. But, in general, libertarians are more tolerant and accepting of social con agendas than the other way around. Social cons hate us.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Not true at all. Libertarians go nuts when a social conservative calls abortion murder, or mentions the importance of traditional marriage or that … Pot shouldn’t be legal. I see it on these forums everyday.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM

I don’t know if I’d say that Federalism worked when it came to Slavery; though, I do think there was a Constitutional argument that slavery was not Constitutional and given the American version of Federalism, the states all would have had to follow that decision.

Federalism allowed for the Union to stay together. Also, states’ rights is what helped build the antislavery movement in the North. The Constitution protected slavery where it was without the 13th amendment. It allowed a divisive issue like slavery to be decided locally. The same can and should be done with abortion and marriage.

cpaulus on November 9, 2010 at 9:59 PM

I don’t find libertarianism and social conservatism incompatible.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Nor do I. And I never rip on social conservatism until they start ripping on libertarianism. I personally agree with their pro-life, traditional-marriage views. But I believe with Rick Perry that we should have 50 individual laboratories of innovation. If a state votes that they want to make abortion literally impossible, then those people should have the right to live in such a place.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:00 PM

DeMint is, what is the word I am looking for…oh yeah, wrong!

The Opinionator on November 9, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7