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 4 7

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

This is what I’m talking about, Libertarians have this irrational and delusional fear about a social conservative instituting some sort of moralistic regime if elected. George W Bush was one of the most religous and socially conservative Presidents we have had in a long time, he never did such a thing. Neither did Reagan. It’s an unfounded fear Libertarians need to get over.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Without gay teachers, there’d be a lot of girls going without gym class.

The Ugly American on November 9, 2010 at 10:02 PM

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

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

Yeah, but then look at all the mud flinging from the errr not-SoCons (are they even libertarian?).

Like I said, I think the vast majority of conservatives not at HA don’t really give these issues much thought. They just know that the government is screwing America over right now.

I heard an interesting characterization of the American Right this weekend. There are those that are anti-State and those that are anti-Liberal-State.

We all have to work together to abolish the current Liberal State, though.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Keep it simple.

You live your life the way you want and I’m not on this Earth to judge you.

I’ll live my life the way I want and you are not on this Earth to judge me.

Keep your hands off my family, my body, my life, my wallet and my happy meals and/or other fatty foods that make Michelle Obama look adorable, and we’ll all get along just fine.

I’ll pay a fair and flat tax based on my own consumption. I will pay a fair tax to help fund local schools and projects… again based on consumption.

Other than that? Step off. I don’t owe anybody anything.

Key West Reader on November 9, 2010 at 10:02 PM

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

Well then they’re just stupid. IMHO, abortion is murder, and I wish people would have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it. That said, humans kill humans every day. I think it should fall to the states to decide. I personally don’t think pot should be legalized, but if a majority of voters in my state sees it differently, then so be it. Let’s experiment and see if society is brought to the brink of destruction or not.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

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

Yeah, Jim. You can.

Don’t overestimate your “mandate”, big boy. Go ahead and TRY to ram the social con BS down America’s throats, and watch what happens to a huge majority of those independents who voted Republican last Tuesday specifically because the GOP got serious about fiscal, rather than social, issues.

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

DeMint is right: Government has grown, becoming a super nanny, because of the devaluation of family and values.

publiuspen on November 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Don’t care. Demint is one of the most fiscally conservative Senators we have. That’s what I care about. How you live your life is up to you.

therightwinger on November 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

I don’t know if I’d say that Federalism worked when it came to Slavery

The Constitution was amended to correct what many of the Founders saw as a glaring problem in 1787.

I can’t imagine another issue that can’t be handled by Federalism.

The 50 states are great laboratories. I wish CA had passed Prop 19 just so the rest of us could see if such a move would work (for example).

mankai on November 9, 2010 at 10:04 PM

But can you be a social conservative and not be a jerk?

IU_Conservative on November 9, 2010 at 10:04 PM

We all have to work together to abolish the current Liberal State, though.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Amen. That’s why it’s a mistake for DeMint to bring in social issues when we have such a big tent for Independents based solely on reducing the size of government, spending and taxes.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:05 PM

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

Yeah, but still from a property right’s point of view, the individual should have sovereignty over his body.

That said, I do think you have a good point. If the states weren’t allowed to opt out, then perhaps the abolitionist movement wouldn’t have come about.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Gah, come on Jim.

WisCon on November 9, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Without gay teachers, there’d be a lot of girls going without gym class.

The Ugly American on November 9, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Heaven forbid we girls would have to go back to the days of the male gym teachers wearing their polyester jorts, hiking up their leg on a classroom chair …. Ugh.

Key West Reader on November 9, 2010 at 10:05 PM

I stand with Demint, he is right.

AP, your hybrid conservatism/libertarianism will fail you and the country eventually just like liberalism has.

scotash on November 9, 2010 at 10:06 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

You know, Rick Perry is really surprising me with this States’ Rights rhetoric. Good for him.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:06 PM

LOL

DeMint is a hoot.

But wrong.

Good Lt on November 9, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Demint is right.

AP, your hybrid conservatism/libertarianism will fail you and the country eventually just like liberalism has.

scotash on November 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM

You know who this helps?

Not Jim DeMint.

This won’t end well.

Purple Fury on November 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM

We should see this as nothing more than a provocation. DeMint might have made a comment, but I’m certain that he understands what’s at stake and that now is not the time to judge morals. Let God sort that out.

Let’s save our Nation, umm kay?

Key West Reader on November 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM

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.

All due respect, this is in error. Can’t speak for every conservative of course, but I do speak for many when I say the touchstone is indeed morality for many conservatives.

IOW, there are lots of us around who supported Bush and forgave him (what are considered by some) many “fiscal con” lapses based on his, among other things, sticking to his pro-life views and promoting life however he could.

inviolet on November 9, 2010 at 10:08 PM

This is what I’m talking about, Libertarians have this irrational and delusional fear about a social conservative instituting some sort of moralistic regime if elected.

Well, i don’t think it’s completely irrational, the reason social conservatives have been such an important voting block the past two decades is because they decided to work with government instead of against it, they decided to use the power of government. Not that i think they’ll impose a theocracy, but a lot of their issues, like prayer in school, do make people nervous. It would be better if they retained their involvement, but used it to reduce government instead of using it’s power.

clearbluesky on November 9, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Amen. That’s why it’s a mistake for DeMint to bring in social issues when we have such a big tent for Independents based solely on reducing the size of government, spending and taxes.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Yeah, if I was him, I wouldn’t have said this.

I will say that I’m suspicious of people that define themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

First, what is fiscal conservatism? To me, it’s not just balancing budgets. I suppose Communists could be good at balancing budgets, but I don’t think we’d consider them fiscal conservatives.

I’m also dismayed at how some on the religious right view the government as a way to do good things. That’s the individual’s responsibility.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:09 PM

But can you be a social conservative and not be a jerk?

IU_Conservative on November 9, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Yes.

kingsjester on November 9, 2010 at 10:09 PM

All 317 libertarians.

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

My point isn’t an attack on libertarians. It is just that Libertarians are far more represented on the Internet than they are in real life.

Many social conservatives distrust libertarians because they show up in liberal trenches a tad too often.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 10:10 PM

This is what I’m talking about, Libertarians have this irrational and delusional fear about a social conservative instituting some sort of moralistic regime if elected. George W Bush was one of the most religous and socially conservative Presidents we have had in a long time, he never did such a thing. Neither did Reagan. It’s an unfounded fear Libertarians need to get over.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 10:00 PM

They are all just pissed they can’t buy booze on Sunday in the AM. A law nobody has really pushed for in about a century.

clement on November 9, 2010 at 10:10 PM

inviolet on November 9, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Clarification: I’m talking natural law morality (like the PJTV video Ed featured the other night said), not a religious sect’s creed. There are plenty of antiabortion atheists, and prolife arguments are based on the humanity of the unborn child, not religious creed arguments.

inviolet on November 9, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Well then they’re just stupid. IMHO, abortion is murder, and I wish people would have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it. That said, humans kill humans every day. I think it should fall to the states to decide. I personally don’t think pot should be legalized, but if a majority of voters in my state sees it differently, then so be it. Let’s experiment and see if society is brought to the brink of destruction or not.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

We agree, and I think most social conservatives and Libertarians can agree when it comes to Federalism. DeMint as well, I seriously doubt he wants to impose his South Carolina values on California, he just wants to blame their troubles on their progressive culture and not have other states forced to bail them out.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 10:10 PM

My point isn’t an attack on libertarians. It is just that Libertarians are far more represented on the Internet than they are in real life.

Many social conservatives distrust libertarians because they show up in liberal trenches a tad too often.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Plus, sometimes the term libertarian is misused by troubled college students that simply don’t want to commit to anything.

I have a great respect for principled libertarians, but some are just anti-Republican Big Government. That’s – mehhhh.

Also, a lot of self-described libertarians probably misuse the label when they consider themselves hawkish given that American libertarianism is about non-aggression.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM

“Social conservatism” as federal policy is social engineering. You may agree with its ends, but its means are no different than liberals trying to make your kids OK with gays and sex.

On a more fundamental level, though, fiscal conservatism as expressed by American conservatives is rooted in natural law theories. If life, liberty, and property being unalienable, self evident rights (and the basis for your objections to undue taxation and federal spending) is your viewpoint, then one cannot justify using tax levied funds towards social engineering, whether for liberal or conservative ends.

ernesto on November 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM

They are all just pissed they can’t buy booze on Sunday in the AM. A law nobody has really pushed for in about a century.

clement on November 9, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Yeah, why can’t you buy booze on a Sunday or in the AM?

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:14 PM

The less stable a government is, apparently, the more one turns to faith for reassurance that everything will be okay.

– Allahpundit, November, 2010

I thought this sounded familiar. And I found a high profile American politician who completely agrees:

So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government….

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

– Obama, April, 2008

TheBigOldDog on November 9, 2010 at 10:14 PM

But can you be a social conservative and not be a jerk?

IU_Conservative on November 9, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Yes.

kingsjester on November 9, 2010 at 10:09 PM

I agree. Unfortunately the “jerk” wing of the socialcon camp often seems to be the loudest, but to be fair that’s probably true with almost any group.

IU_Conservative on November 9, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Also, a lot of self-described libertarians probably misuse the label when they consider themselves hawkish given that American libertarianism is about non-aggression.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM

I have found that getting two libertarians to agree on anything is a minor miracle. It too often seems to be a catch all for not-Republican or Democrat.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 10:15 PM

A Nation/Culture must have a Moral Standard from which to create laws, in our broken world.

Philosophically we are talking about the “ONE” and the “MANY” or “UNITY” within “DIVERSITY”. One of the first steps in choosing what the ONE will be is for the MANY to decide if they beleive in the “ONE” Truth of the Bible(I.e. non-human, transcedent and revealed Law) or what many would prefer to follow instead: HUMANISM.

The Left wanted Obama to be “The One” and as he said, Sin was “Falling out of line with HIS Values” instead of say the plain teachings revealed by God in the Bible.

As long as different factions within America are worshiping different “ONE’s” there will always be nasty Culture Wars. The Left historically looks for the human nature need of Atonement in Government(Dictators, etc) while Libertarian Humanist look for it elsewhere, usually themselves.

jp on November 9, 2010 at 10:16 PM

AP, your hybrid conservatism/libertarianism will fail you and the country eventually just like liberalism has.

scotash on November 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM

unreal

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 10:16 PM

TheBigOldDog on November 9, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Do we still give +1′s?

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Why bring this up now? It is like Christie saying Castle would have been a good Republican Senator after COD lost. Maybe you feel that way but it is still something you should just let sleep. As for DeMint saying this, if that is what he truly believes why bring it up as per his belief all those pieces will fall into place on their own, right? I think the simpler fiscal conservative, personal responsibility, and smaller limited government message gets him where he wants to go.

bluemarlin on November 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

I have found that getting two libertarians to agree on anything is a minor miracle. It too often seems to be a catch all for not-Republican or Democrat.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Yeah, well, if the GOP nominates a big gov’t Repub in ’12, I MIGHT be in that camp – depending on which state I’ll be voting in.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

and not have other states forced to bail them out.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 10:10 PM

California should go bankrupt. And I live here. So this is one area I agree with DeMint’s premise, that it is morally repugnant for California to be taking taxpayer money from the rest of the country to pay these ridiculous public servant pensions.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:18 PM

O/T Bristol made it another week….several liberals heads exploded tonight….its a good day.

unseen on November 9, 2010 at 10:18 PM

bluemarlin on November 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

IDK about the Right being ready to govern, but are they ready to keep their mouths shut when talking about each other?

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:19 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

AGREED!

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

AGREED!

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Don’t care. Demint is one of the most fiscally conservative Senators we have. That’s what I care about. How you live your life is up to you.

therightwinger on November 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

But that’s the problem here, really. DeMint wants to displace one nanny state for another. Liberals / socialists want to tell you how to live your life regarding financial issues (redistributing wealth for “social justice”). True believer social cons want to tell you how to live your life too, just under the guise of “social morality”.

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM

PRESIDENT DEMINT! THAT’S THE CHANGE I CAN TRULY BELIEVE IN!

But, if he doesn’t run… I settle for the second best…

PRESIDENT PALIN!

2012, here we come!

TheAlamos on November 9, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Well then they’re just stupid. IMHO, abortion is murder, and I wish people would have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it. That said, humans kill humans every day. I think it should fall to the states to decide. I personally don’t think pot should be legalized, but if a majority of voters in my state sees it differently, then so be it. Let’s experiment and see if society is brought to the brink of destruction or not.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Well stated my fellow (Lib)ertarian

Notorious GOP on November 9, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Seriously. It seems to not matter how many chances Republicans get, they will screw it up every time.

I’m a social conservative but even I recognize this is a losing strategy at this stage of the game.

And apparently, Senator DeMint has never heard of Libertarians.

ramrants on November 9, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Yeah, well, if the GOP nominates a big gov’t Repub in ’12, I MIGHT be in that camp – depending on which state I’ll be voting in.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

I think you will be far from lonely. Unfortunately it looks like that is exactly what they will do.

I like DeMint saying this and I think people should at least give him credit for saying what he believes. We too often get upset with politicians for telling us what they think we want to hear. You can’t have it both ways.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Many social conservatives distrust libertarians because they show up in liberal trenches a tad too often.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Which is unfathomable to me. Utterly boggling. But libertarianism attracts all the kooks who know nothing of authoritarianism and simply want to run down the street buck naked and screw everything in sight. Even Bill Maher was calling himself a libertarian because he likes to smoke pot. It’s insulting, and Breitbart called him on it.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:22 PM

a strong case could be made that non-social conservatives grow government because they expect the state to pick up the responsibilites that the church have historically done.

Like charity, welfare, food stamps, medicare, hospice, meals on wheels, unwed mothers, drug abuse clinics etc etc….

unseen on November 9, 2010 at 10:23 PM

I like DeMint saying this and I think people should at least give him credit for saying what he believes. We too often get upset with politicians for telling us what they think we want to hear. You can’t have it both ways.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 10:21 PM

I wish he had been more tactful with the way it came out, BUT I admire the man immensely and I think there’s no doubt he was extremely influential in helping out his party and the conservative movement in general this year.

I agree that his honesty is also not only refreshing but needed.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:23 PM

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.

you don’t get it AP, If Demint reasoned as you just did(Humanistically) then he may come to that conclusion.

But since he takes the Bible seriously, he knows exactly what God has said about the Institution of Marriage and its intent(and probably the theologically meaning of a Marriage between One Woman, One Man and God).

Anyway, what God Says is the “One” law Demint believes we should follow, not an Arbitrarily changing, contradicting Humanistic ‘law”

jp on November 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM

It’s insulting, and Breitbart called him on it.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Amen!

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM

IDK about the Right being ready to govern, but are they ready to keep their mouths shut when talking about each other?

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Apparently not, I wish it were different, but as Bishop has pointed out, food fights will abound!

bluemarlin on November 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM

I’m hearing a lot of buzz on Senator DeMint. I think he’s gonna be a favourite of mine!

Two crap years of ZerObama and all the Repubs wanna put out there is Huckaphony and Romneycare Inc? How sad. How lost!

GO DEMINT!!!!!!!!!!

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Which is unfathomable to me. Utterly boggling. But libertarianism attracts all the kooks who know nothing of authoritarianism and simply want to run down the street buck naked and screw everything in sight. Even Bill Maher was calling himself a libertarian because he likes to smoke pot. It’s insulting, and Breitbart called him on it.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Reason Magazine as well.

I guess the question to ask is… how do we tell you guys apart? You all look the same to me!

There are so many varieties of libertarian its mind boggling.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 10:25 PM

But that’s the problem here, really. DeMint wants to displace one nanny state for another. Liberals / socialists want to tell you how to live your life regarding financial issues (redistributing wealth for “social justice”). True believer social cons want to tell you how to live your life too, just under the guise of “social morality”.

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Social morality my ^ss! You can’t be fiscally conservative if YOU CAN’T HANDLE YOUR LIFE RESPONSIBLY!

An inefficient, under-performing, individual irresponsible for his/her own actions will always pose “additional burden” to others.

THAT’S THE MEANING OF IT ALL!

You can’t be fiscally conservative if you can’t be socially responsible.

TheAlamos on November 9, 2010 at 10:25 PM

a strong case could be made that non-social conservatives grow government because they expect the state to pick up the responsibilites that the church have historically done.

Like charity, welfare, food stamps, medicare, hospice, meals on wheels, unwed mothers, drug abuse clinics etc etc….

unseen on November 9, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Good points. We won’t be able to cut the size of gov’t without somehow some growth from the churches.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:25 PM

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

Absolutely correct. There is great dollar cost to liberal social policies. A fiscal conservative can’t embrace those costs and remain a fiscal conservative.

RJL on November 9, 2010 at 10:25 PM

jp on November 9, 2010 at 10:16 PM

The trouble for you is that ‘revealed law’ as the basis for moral judgements been unable to cope with philosophical developments from utilitarians and deontologists. Its rather archaic.

ernesto on November 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM

The really smart people, combine the two and the Government becomes Jesus. Like Obama’s aunt for example:

Despite what’s she’s been given, Zeituni Onyango said flatly that she owes this country nothing in return. “But, it’s given you so much?” Elias asked. “So? It’s a free country under God,” was her terse response.

When asked why the taxpayers should be burdened with her needs, the feisty Zeituni said, “This country is owned by almighty God. You people who preach Jesus Christ almighty God and the rest of it, you are here to help people, help the poor, help other countries and help women. That’s what the United States is supposed to do? And you have to give me my right light, every person’s right.”

TheBigOldDog on November 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Just leave me to my devices, and I’ll leave you to your devices. Hurt me, and be punished by American law.

I think that works.

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 10:26 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.

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

LOLWUT? I think of a true libertarian as favoring political rights (freedom of thought, speech, conscience, and the press, the right to vote, civil equality) over “economic liberty.” And if that’s the case, libertarians should nearly always vote for liberals.

crr6 on November 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Apparently not, I wish it were different, but as Bishop has pointed out, food fights will abound!

bluemarlin on November 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM

At least online. I do wish people would just stop bashing people like Palin. I have my issues with her, but she really puts it all out there and I’d be thinking all GOP “insiders” would be cheering for her to succeed.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM

LOLWUT? I think of a true libertarian as favoring political rights (freedom of thought, speech, conscience, and the press, the right to vote, civil equality) over “economic liberty.” And if that’s the case, libertarians should nearly always vote for liberals.

crr6 on November 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Well, that’s your definition of libertarianism and it’s not surprising.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:28 PM

You can’t be fiscally conservative if you can’t be socially responsible.

TheAlamos on November 9, 2010 at 10:25 PM

What does that have — even remotely — to do with government intrusion on individual liberty?

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Libertarians do. not. exist.

I really despise this nu-terminology that if you’re a FisCon but not a SoCon you’re “Libertarian.”

No, you’re not. That’s just a fun, academic synonym. If you’re a FisCon and not a SoCon you’re a “moderate” or an “independent” or a “Reagan Democrat.”

The “traditional” social war is LOST. DONE. POINT.BLANK.PERIOD. Abortion will always be legal; gay marriage/civil unions will inevitably happen. The argument needs to be shifted to a new social more of service, family, character. Yes, you may have an abortion, but is it right? Yes, we should have a legal system for co-habitating same-sex couples to have a tax break (conservative), but should the license be the same name as a religious sacrament?

Those are the reasoned, principled arguments. No abortions-on-demand; no “gay marriage licenses” just cuz. DeMint is wrong here in beating up a tired ol’ show-pony.

You argue the positives of your position; not the negatives of the phantasmagoric — yet loud — left. And at a time when the “Libertarians” (aka the moderates, independents, and Reagan Democrats) are fine-tuned to fiscal sanity, you do not inject the white noise of cultural/ideological purity based on distracting social issues.

lansing quaker on November 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM

You can’t be fiscally conservative if you can’t be socially responsible.

TheAlamos on November 9, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Socially responsible or socially conservative

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM

crr6 on November 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM

It may help if you study and observe what libertarianism is, rather than simply forwarding what you feel it should be.

Individual liberty. Every dollar the government takes from an individual is that much more incremental slavery.

Pure libertarians don’t even believe in safety nets. Pure competition, pure free markets.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:33 PM

If you’re a FisCon and not a SoCon you’re a “moderate” or an “independent” or a “Reagan Democrat.”

lansing quaker on November 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM

I have to say I didn’t follow a word you said. But I quoted this because it’s the tip of the iceberg. I’d argue I’m more an extreme free-marketer than you are. How is that moderate? Reagan Democrats? Those are blue-collar union workers who flipped for Reagan’s (which is Goldwater’s) libertarianism.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:36 PM

George W Bush was one of the most religous and socially conservative Presidents we have had in a long time, he never did such a thing. Neither did Reagan. It’s an unfounded fear Libertarians need to get over.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Like that unfounded Faith-based Initiative.

AshleyTKing on November 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM

No, you’re not. That’s just a fun, academic synonym. If you’re a FisCon and not a SoCon you’re a “moderate” or an “independent” or a “Reagan Democrat.”

Or maybe just a traditional Republican like they used to be, before the social conservatives jumped ship from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

There was still a GOP when the southeast was a complete Democratic bloc. And for those who insist that Social Conservatism is the same as fiscal conservatism, and is an integral part of the GOP, when why the heck did you people give us Jimmy Carter? Social Conservatives fell all over themselves voting for that guy in 1976 over Gerald Ford, who was a decent man and a good Republican.

And then voted for LBJ over Goldwater too. And then voted for FDR over any Republican he faced too.

firepilot on November 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM

I pretty much agree with DeMint that the two are intertwined. It’s one of the reasons we are at the point we’re at. As society has become more socially liberal, the fabric of America has unraveled, creating a breeding ground for government programs.

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 10:39 PM

I read that headline and I heard the proverbial needle scratch across the record.

Geez. I’m glad the election was LAST week.

Oink on November 9, 2010 at 10:39 PM

firepilot on November 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Agreed. I meant to toss Republican in there, too, but shot beyond my point.

I am a Republican, and a FisCon and not a SoCon. So thanks for reminding me of that. :)

lansing quaker on November 9, 2010 at 10:40 PM

crr6 on November 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM

It may help if you study and observe what libertarianism is, rather than simply forwarding what you feel it should be.

Great, thanks for that.

Individual liberty. Every dollar the government takes from an individual is that much more incremental slavery.

This is sort of what I’m getting at. A lot of the libertarians I know and/or read here freak out about getting taxed a tiny bit more, but they could care less about more serious government encroachments on liberty such as oppressive police practices, draconian sentencing laws and other things of that nature. That’s why I have a hard time taking them seriously.

Pure libertarians don’t even believe in safety nets. Pure competition, pure free markets.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:33 PM

I think you’re making the (common) mistake of confusing libertarianism with capitalism. One is a political philosophy, the other is an economic system.

crr6 on November 9, 2010 at 10:41 PM

We won’t be able to cut the size of gov’t without somehow some growth from the churches.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Yes something will have to step in to pick up the needs. Esp after Obama has been on jihad against charity the last 2 years.

Individual freedom and liberty are great but it will mean that some people fail and when that happens we can not allow their plight to motive the masses to think we need government to protect them.

Bush tried to just give the money to the churches that is wrong. We must cut taxes and government overreach so the people have the funds to fund the needs of the local community.

i think the government should be in the business of making sure the plane doesn’t fall from the sky due to poor repair, not flying the plane.

Like wise the government should oversea that charity is available just not be directing the resources.

unseen on November 9, 2010 at 10:42 PM

I’m a pro-choice fiscal conservative. Mr. Demint.

Kaptain Amerika on November 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM

a strong case could be made that non-social conservatives grow government because they expect the state to pick up the responsibilites that the church have historically done.

Like charity, welfare, food stamps, medicare, hospice, meals on wheels, unwed mothers, drug abuse clinics etc etc….

unseen

No, you mean social liberals, not just non-social conservatives. Do not fall into this trap of myopic binary thinking, that many social conservatives do. They insist if you are not one of them, then you are a social liberal.

Fiscal conservatives/social libertarians often want the smallest amount of government than anyone. All too often, both social conservatives and social liberals have an uncomfortable high level of desire for government involvement in our lives, as long as it is pushing a certain values set.

I just think values wars are not the federal governments business anyways.

firepilot on November 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM

At least online. I do wish people would just stop bashing people like Palin. I have my issues with her, but she really puts it all out there and I’d be thinking all GOP “insiders” would be cheering for her to succeed.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Agreed! They want her to succeed for their particular purpose and then fade away I guess. Me, I am for anyone who is willing to paint that target on themselves to advance responsible fiscal conservatism.

bluemarlin on November 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM

I pretty much agree with DeMint that the two are intertwined. It’s one of the reasons we are at the point we’re at. As society has become more socially liberal, the fabric of America has unraveled, creating a breeding ground for government programs.

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Would you have considered us socially conservative during the New Deal or Great Society?

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Geez. I’m glad the election was LAST week.

Oink on November 9, 2010 at 10:39 PM

How true but something tells me this soundbite from DeMint will be played a gazillion times right up to noon on November 6, 2012.

sherry on November 9, 2010 at 10:44 PM

I pretty much agree with DeMint that the two are intertwined. It’s one of the reasons we are at the point we’re at. As society has become more socially liberal, the fabric of America has unraveled, creating a breeding ground for government programs.

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 10:39 PM

But DeMint’s argument of what constitutes “social liberalism” does not follow. Abortion/gays did not create is inasmuch as “fairness” on an economic level — unions, race, affirmative action.

Abortion/gays are easy targets, but they have nothing to do with the financial drain on America, urban or otherwise.

He needs to either grow some platinum ones and take on the real issues of “social justice/liberalism” or just not try.

lansing quaker on November 9, 2010 at 10:45 PM

How true but something tells me this soundbite from DeMint will be played a gazillion times right up to noon on November 6, 2012.

sherry on November 9, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Naw… the MSM will be claiming he’s out to kill the old people by abolishing their social security!!!!11!

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Agreed! They want her to succeed for their particular purpose and then fade away I guess. Me, I am for anyone who is willing to paint that target on themselves to advance responsible fiscal conservatism.

bluemarlin on November 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM

:D

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Jeez. It’s disconcerting how many peeps here don’t like DeMint.

I do. We need more like him.

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 10:47 PM

The “traditional” social war is LOST

There never was a traditional ideal. That’s the sad part about the social conservative movement. They want some return to a past social ideal that never existed.

As society has become more socially liberal, the fabric of America has unraveled, creating a breeding ground for government programs.

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 10:39 PM

The black community in America had less social problems inside itself when it was denied basic civil rights. After the civil rights movement (which was a good thing and complete imperative), the government then began creating victims of that community, leading to so many of the problems.

Government programs lead to devolution. Not the other way around. Give them incentive to devolve, and they will. Take it away, and the strong, responsible ones will rise.

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 10:47 PM

I think you’re making the (common) mistake of confusing libertarianism with capitalism. One is a political philosophy, the other is an economic system.

crr6 on November 9, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Someone should tell Obama that political philosophies and economic philosophies combined doesn’t jive well with crr6.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Oops, is that racist?

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 10:48 PM

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:46 PM

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 10:36 PM

You two are bringing the mail tonight..:)

PS..I have a lot of Libertarian in me!

Dire Straits on November 9, 2010 at 10:49 PM

You two are bringing the mail tonight..:)

PS..I have a lot of Libertarian in me!

Dire Straits on November 9, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Well, at least you don’t have some Barney Frank in you!

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:51 PM

DeMint is a warrior for everything our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution stands for. He is a warrior for everything that is good and true and beautiful about America. He will fight to his last breath to take America back from Soros, obama and his minions.

So AP and others want to take him off of the wall where he is guarding us? Really? When true statesmen are practically non-existant? When we are just about to go all Weimar Republic, you think this is what we should be doing?

Everyone who thinks this is a fight we should be having amongst ourselves and that we would be better off without Senator DeMint because he won’t buy into AP’s atheism, or pot legalizing (that should cost us a bundle in drugged out medical problems from 6th grade onward) libertarianism, or GOProud’s (or ACT UP’s for that matter) agenda, or into the killing of the unborn should get honest with themselves and openly join the Left in attacking him.

Allah can take his fans and trolls to guest blog at the HuffPo and frolic with the KOS kids and commiserate with everyone who hates him because DeMint is a leader; an alpha male who won’t back off of his unshakeable faith in traditional Judeo/Christian virtues.

And I just wonder. Do DeMint’s faith and beliefs hurt America?

Or did faith and belief such as his build America?

P.S. And GOProud should get lost along with anyone promoting them. This organization states in their own website that they exist to promote FEDERAL legislative and policy changes in favor of the homosexual agenda, i.e., insurance coverage for homosexual partners, DADT, homosexual “marriage”, homosexuality taught to the children as part of sex ed, Anti-prop 8 etc.
They are a trojan horse of divisive, phony, fiscal “conservatives”, probably a Soros front and are the last people who should be pretending that the federal cramdown of their agenda would do anything but cost us all astronomically. They are the perfect example of social leftists costing everyone else. And we should support this, AP? That would be really bright.

I have homosexual friends who are true social and fiscal conservatives. In other words, they are true conservatives. And I am proud to stand and fight with them, and they with me. They wouldn’t be caught dead pushing GOProud. And they don’t believe that their choice of sexual acts (and they have their struggles with the right and wrong and are trying to get closer to God and don’t have a problem talking about it with close friends) should be mainstreamed into society via the Federal government or any government force at all, for that matter.

I guess they would be libertarians, but that’s not necessary, and really inferior to true conservativism.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 10:51 PM

*head palm*

Nothing but love for DeMint, but good grief!

itzWicks on November 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Being a social conservative does NOT mean one is a priggish stick in the mud! We can be very diverse, quirky and free-spirited.

Gosh, I thought the dopey left only thought that.

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Well, at least you don’t have some Barney Frank in you!

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:51 PM

You are right..I have NO Barney Frank in me..:)

Dire Straits on November 9, 2010 at 10:53 PM

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Thanks for the post. Interesting point on GOProud.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:54 PM

You are right..I have NO Barney Frank in me..:)

Dire Straits on November 9, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Well, good. I was going to have to get one of those greedy foot doctors to rip it out of you!

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Jeez. It’s disconcerting how many peeps here don’t like DeMint.

I do. We need more like him.

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 10:47 PM

I hear you, Gob. Wonder when the next open registration will be.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 10:55 PM

I have homosexual friends who are true social and fiscal conservatives. In other words, they are true conservatives. And I am proud to stand and fight with them, and they with me. And they don’t believe that their choice of sexual acts (and they have their struggles with the right and wrong and are trying to get closer to God and don’t have a problem talking about it with close friends) should be mainstreamed into society via the Federal government or any government force at all, for that matter.

AMEN AMEN AMEN!!! You go TL!!!!

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM

In other words, they are true conservatives.

A true conservative has to be socially conservative, as well as fiscally?

What if I’m not a foreign policy hawk? What if I think invasions constitute a poor counter terrorism policy? Does that degrade my conservo-cred?

Please.

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7