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 5 7

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

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM

More so, as a country, yes, but people can fall for propaganda at any time. And then there’s the slippery slope. As a generation removed from a good share of the posters at HA, I’ve had a window seat on the cultural and fiscal decline.

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 10:57 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 like DeMint plenty. I just so happen to be incredibly responsible with my money, my life, and you know what? I’m not religious, and I don’t attend church.

FANCY THAT.

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 10:58 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

lol. You might need a specialty other than podiatry. It does begin with a “p”, though.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 10:58 PM

@Gob,

Unfortunately SoCons do have a tendency to try to impose their views on others in regards to abortion, prayer in school, gay marriage, etc. Growing up in the heart of the bible belt, I had that rammed down my throat. How about we stay out of people lives, not just their wallets but their bedrooms and personal lives as well. Hardly a libertarian view of the world, rather an American one.

The Opinionator on November 9, 2010 at 10:58 PM

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 10:55 PM

LOL! I go away for a tic and it’s like Libertarian city here!

I don’t trust the Libertarians. Medved has been a squish lately, but he was spot-on with his distain for ‘em. He calls ‘em Losertarians and I never waste a vote on them!

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 10:58 PM

More so, as a country, yes, but people can fall for propaganda at any time. And then there’s the slippery slope. As a generation removed from a good share of the posters at HA, I’ve had a window seat on the cultural and fiscal decline.

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Hmmm… I wonder if they were more socially conservative. I’m not sure. Even from my own family, I learned some pretty interesting stories from the older generations. Things that I thought were taboo – this in a very socially conservative family.

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Hardly a libertarian view of the world, rather an American one.

The Opinionator on November 9, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Hear hear!

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 10:59 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 like him, think he is great for the party and pulls it my way. I just think he could leave that statement out for a while, especially since by his own belief the people will fall into his category anyway. Why throw the bomb this early after an election and give the press fodder?

bluemarlin on November 9, 2010 at 10:59 PM

lol. You might need a specialty other than podiatry. It does begin with a “p”, though.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Yes, the greedy (let’s see if this gets through) penii doctors

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 11:00 PM

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 10:51 PM

If you assume the philosophical underpinnings of the declaration to be true, then social conservatism as federal policy cannot be justified. Social engineering using funds coerced from free citizens is antithetical to classically liberal natural law theories. Every dollar you spend protecting heterosexual marriage, every dollar you spend telling someone what they can’t put in their body, is an affront to the declaration.

ernesto on November 9, 2010 at 11:02 PM

He is wrong on that statement, but I would vote for him. I’d campaign for him. I’d fight for him.

Star20 on November 9, 2010 at 11:02 PM

The Opinionator on November 9, 2010 at 10:58 PM

I USED to think that way when I was a Liberal. I have since been perfected. I come from the state that just re-elected Barney’s Frank, so I know all about Liberalism.

I look around today and see all the LIBERALS trying to dictate. Look what is going on in San Fran. Hardly social cons. How about animal right’s activists (and I am an animal rights person!!!)???

I was lied to. The real totalitarians are THE LEFT. I have never felt more free than as a PROUD Social Conservative.

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 11:03 PM

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

Haven’t seen you around much, glad to see you!

lovingmyUSA on November 9, 2010 at 11:05 PM

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 10:58 PM

You don’t have to be religious or go to church…free country. But what would be nice of the anti-religious is to understand that you do NOT have to agree with the religious…but understand that they have certain values and beliefs that are dear to them…and you have the right to disagree, but it would be nice if you could know that what they believe in rules their beliefs.

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 11:06 PM

I do

I was raised in a religious setting, and went to Catholic school

I respect religion, I think it is generally a good thing, I know clergy (both family and unrelated) and respect them

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 11:08 PM

Senator you are so very wrong. The last I looked no one had died and made you God of the GOP.

Jdripper on November 9, 2010 at 11:08 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

John, I think it’s a brilliant move on DeMint’s part. He is leading a charge. I’m sure you have noticed that the Left doesn’t back down from pushing their “social”, (if you can call it something that civilized), agenda.

Why should we default and surrender the field in that battle? IMO, if we lose the “social” battle to the Left that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to ever win a fiscal battle. And why are we conservatives tucking tail in this battle? To please whom?

This war must be fought and WON on ALL FRONTS, social, fiscal, pro-free market, pro-capitalism, pro-human rights and human freedom. These principles do not stand alone, they are interlocked and interdependent. If we aren’t capable or willing to understand that then we’ll lose. And that’s not an option, in my book.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:09 PM

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:09 PM

So we should start bringing up gay marriage in January with the incoming GOPers?

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 11:12 PM

Uhhhh….yeahhhh AP…how much did you give to charity this year? Don’t answer… we already know

DCJeff on November 9, 2010 at 11:12 PM

The “social” conservative wants govt out of the way.

Haunches on November 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM

On the contrary, social conservatives have no problem with government “getting in the way” when it comes to marriage for example.

Deanna on November 9, 2010 at 11:13 PM

MeatHeadinCA on November 9, 2010 at 10:59 PM

I understand what you are hinting at, but perhaps inadvertently, you gave a clue to one of today’s current problems. You said you grew up in a conservative family. The key word there is “family.” It is becoming the norm today that fewer people have any family with which to interact. That is a huge issue. As the family support system decreases, the reliance on government programs increases.

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Wow! 190 comments aleady? This is some hot button issue.

We have to unite under the banner of fiscal responsibility or liberals will use our disagreements on social issues against us.

I bet that most Americans who call themselves fiscal conservatives, also call themselves social moderates. We need a thoughtful discussion about these social issues without imposing personal religious beliefs into the mix. Perhaps we need to establish a healthier separation between church and state with more thoughtful and clear-headed ideas, instead of telling one another we are totally wrong and fighting until the end of time. Can we protect our individual freedom and freedom to worship? It is time to start handling these differences more constructively and with discussion, folks.

pjean on November 9, 2010 at 11:17 PM

ernesto on November 9, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Hardly. For example, the protection of the right to Life, one of our Creator-given rights which our Founders in their wisdom honored in our Declaration and spoke about as something that could not be taken without due process in our Constitution, is as foundational to the philosophical and religious beliefs of the Founders and to their intent for the right operation of our Republic as one can get. Hence, abortion, which deprives citizens of their right to life in a most savage and tortuous manner, should not and cannot be subjugated by the lesser principle of states rights, should individual states be so misguided as to “legalize” this injustice.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:19 PM

We need a thoughtful discussion about these social issues without imposing personal religious beliefs into the mix.

It isn’t necessarily about religion. This is a liberal trap that conservatives fall into.

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 11:20 PM

We need more religion in every discussion. We need people in government who will represent the religious philosophies of those that they represent.

PrezHussein on November 9, 2010 at 11:21 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. 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.
tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 10:51 PM

In other words, they’re self-hating homosexuals.

And wow, how dare those homosexual groups, like GOProud, use the actual political process to try and bring about federal legislative change to obtain equality for themselves. They should just shut up and be happy as second-class citizens in Jim DeMint’s America, right?

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 11:23 PM

I just want to know what Jim Demint thinks of Aircraft Contrails vs Missile Contrails./

Egfrow on November 9, 2010 at 11:23 PM

In fairness, let’s sit back and wait for Sen. DeMint to clarify his point. I’m sure that he will see that Americans came out in droves November 2nd to support fiscal conservatism and the protection of our American way of life. This was a mandate most about fiscal, not social issues.

pjean on November 9, 2010 at 11:23 PM

DeMint is a fundamentalist twit. Anti-science, anti-logic idiot. Just like you PrezHussein. If conservatism could rid itself of this sort of nonsense, it would reign supreme in this country.

dakine on November 9, 2010 at 11:24 PM

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:19 PM

The abortion issue is one exception, though a tenuous one. The idea that a “citizen” has been robbed of life at a month or two has not been settled by any legitimate authority.

Either way, “social conservatism” does not begin and end with abortion. Gay rights issues, issues of ID and evolution in schools, drug laws…all socially conservative affronts to our rights if natural law theory is what you’re going by to determine “rights” and moral action.

ernesto on November 9, 2010 at 11:24 PM

In other words, they’re self-hating homosexuals.

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 11:23 PM

And blacks who vote Republican are race traitors right?

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:25 PM

I see ernesto is pretending to be a libertarian again.

The Mega Independent on November 9, 2010 at 11:26 PM

In other words, they’re self-hating homosexuals.

And wow, how dare those homosexual groups, like GOProud, use the actual political process to try and bring about federal legislative change to obtain equality for themselves. They should just shut up and be happy as second-class citizens in Jim DeMint’s America, right?

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 11:23 PM

Hey I have a question why is it liberals, who are always pro abortion and never compromise, who are alsways pro gay-marriage and never compromise, who are always willing to spend more of your tax dollars on illegal aliens and crooks who cheat the public safety net are never called to the table for their unflinching votes on social issues? You never ask them to compromise on anything, we must always abandon fiscal responsibility for social liberalism.

Social liberalism is an expensive proposition diametrically opposed to fiscal conservatism. You cannot be both becayse adherence to liberal social policy carries a price tag and a laxity inconsistent with fiscal conservatism.

BKennedy on November 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM

dakine on November 9, 2010 at 11:24 PM

The day is coming where you will have your secular humanist utopia.

Hell on earth, you will enjoy it!

Inanemergencydial on November 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM

And blacks who vote Republican are race traitors right?

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:25 PM

Always back to state of being to state of choice?

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Hence, abortion, which deprives citizens of their right to life in a most savage and tortuous manner, should not and cannot be subjugated by the lesser principle of states rights, should individual states be so misguided as to “legalize” this injustice.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:19 PM

There’s nothing in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence that suggests that they were intended to apply to fetuses. And, read literally, the Declaration of Independence only says it is self-evident that all “men” are created equal. It doesn’t say anything about women, which isn’t surprising since women weren’t allowed to vote at that time.

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Some prefer that government pay the professors and media to form the philosophies that they will be ruled by. This religion is being established for the good of the people. Don’t worry everything will be fine as long as you agree.

They want political discussions to only refer to the findings of the soft sciences. The soft sciences will tell us what is good for the people.

PrezHussein on November 9, 2010 at 11:30 PM

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 11:23 PM

True social conservatives do NOT use identity politics when it comes to peeps. It’s all about Americans.

At the same time, social conservatives will not let bad behaviour, no matter who it is done by, sit unchallenged.

And the proud gays I know who are social cons are NOT self-hating. How could they be? They don’t participate in behaviour that would make them hate themselves.

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 11:30 PM

On the contrary, social conservatives have no problem with government “getting in the way” when it comes to marriage for example.

Deanna on November 9, 2010 at 11:13 PM

Marriage has been one man and one woman for several millenia. Those who relentlessly attempt to force a change from this, despite overwhelming public opposition, so that their proclivities for sexual acts with persons of the same sex can be showered upon the the whole of society by using every legal trick, statist intimidation tactic and the brute force of government force (like GOProud) to do so are the ones “getting in the way” here.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM

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

Agree.

I think DeMint is right here, although I would make the distiction between a voter and politician.

I have yet to see anyone name a single politician who is consistently fiscally conservative while at the same time being consistently socially liberal.

Let’s face it; the correlation coefficient between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives is very high.

Norwegian on November 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Always back to state of being to state of choice?

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Always back to the idea that people can choose to believe what they want and others shouldn’t be telling them what they must believe politically.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Social liberalism is an expensive proposition diametrically opposed to fiscal conservatism. You cannot be both becayse adherence to liberal social policy carries a price tag and a laxity inconsistent with fiscal conservatism.

BKennedy on November 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM

And social conservatism is inconsistent with fiscal conservativism becuase society needs to spend money to enforce socially conservative laws.

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM

The “traditional” social war is LOST. DONE. POINT.BLANK.PERIOD. Abortion will always be legal; gay marriage/civil unions will inevitably happen.
lansing quaker on November 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Good luck convincing some here of that. I’ve tried before.

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM

And social conservatism is inconsistent with fiscal conservativism becuase society needs to spend money to enforce socially conservative laws.

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Society has to spend money to enforce all laws, if they are liberal or conservative laws.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:34 PM

I see ernesto is pretending to be a libertarian again.

The Mega Independent on November 9, 2010 at 11:26 PM

Poisoning the well? Without even addressing the comment? What’s the point?

ernesto on November 9, 2010 at 11:34 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

Male gym teachers?

You’ve just described my female junior high coach to a T.

Her speciality was hiking a leg onto a wooden chair followed by a lecture on why we need to shower naked instead of just wetting our hair.

The Ugly American on November 9, 2010 at 11:34 PM

And social conservatism is inconsistent with fiscal conservativism becuase society needs to spend money to enforce socially conservative laws.

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM

There is no such thing as a “socially conservative law” or even a “socially liberal law.”

There is however such a thing as a socially conservative program: It’s called charity. Compare to socally liberal programs, all of which stem from government spending of taxpayer dollars.

Social conservatism is free because it frees the soul and is self containing. Social liberalism thrusts people under the thumb of a government incapable of applying wisdom, for there is always another vote to buy.

BKennedy on November 9, 2010 at 11:35 PM

In other words, they are true conservatives.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Are you gay friends Scottish by any chance?

To me, this is all 100% backwards. How can one be a small government/fiscal conservative if you’re a social con? Legislating morality is inherently big government.

strictnein on November 9, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Are you your gay friends Scottish by any chance?

Fixed

strictnein on November 9, 2010 at 11:37 PM

He’s on crack.

And yes Allah, you called it within the first few sentences, he just lost this Libertarian’s support.

I can’t believe how archaic his way of thinking is.

ButterflyDragon on November 9, 2010 at 11:38 PM

It isn’t necessarily about religion. This is a liberal trap that conservatives fall into.

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Social issues of this modern day have never been placed in the context of our Constitution. Gay marriage and abortion are the biggies, of course. Separation of church and state should be upheld. Individual liberty must be protected. Religious freedom must be protected. Instead of plugging our ears and saying “La la la!” will not change a thing.

Our framers did not foresee such social issues, so we need to apply the Constitution to these issues AFTER we get our fiscal house in order. These founding fathers were brilliant. They took the time to write a document that was utterly visionary. I respect and admire that America, as young as it is, STILL has the oldest constitution in the world. Amazing! Is the Constitution a “living, breathing document”? No. Do we need to be more explicit about where the state gets to intervene on these most controversial issues. Yes, it’s necessary.

pjean on November 9, 2010 at 11:38 PM

I agree with DeMint. With the decline of our moral/family structure declines….the bigger the government gets.

terryannonline on November 9, 2010 at 11:38 PM

Are you gay friends Scottish by any chance?

To me, this is all 100% backwards. How can one be a small government/fiscal conservative if you’re a social con? Legislating morality is inherently big government.

strictnein on November 9, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Planned Parenthood gets taxpayer dollars. Big social cons, them.

BKennedy on November 9, 2010 at 11:38 PM

Always back to the idea that people can choose to believe what they want and others shouldn’t be telling them what they must believe politically.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Totally irrelevant answer to my question. But to your point, should my grandchild be forced to read literature about or attend classes on homosexuality?

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 11:39 PM

So we should start bringing up gay marriage in January with the incoming GOPers?

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 11:12 PM

I posted this to John after your post, but I think it also applies to your post. Below is the principle; the core, if you will, from which all strategy emanates. Whether or not speaking about homosexual marriage in January is warranted or not is a strategic and tactical decision that may or may not be deployed at that time. I’d say probably not, but I don’t pretend to be as experienced or wise as DeMint. However, as I said below, Jim is merely staking his high ground, drawing the line in the sand, stating principles and letting everyone know he’s standing tall on them.

DeMint is leading a charge and staking the high ground. I’m sure you have noticed that the Left doesn’t back down from pushing their “social”, (if you can call it something that civilized), agenda.

Why should we default and surrender the field in that battle? IMO, if we lose the “social” battle to the Left that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to ever win a fiscal battle. And why are we conservatives tucking tail in this battle? To please whom?

This war must be fought and WON on ALL FRONTS, social, fiscal, pro-free market, pro-capitalism, pro-human rights and human freedom. These principles do not stand alone, they are interlocked and interdependent. If we aren’t capable or willing to understand that then we’ll lose. And that’s not an option, in my book.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:39 PM

Legislating morality is inherently big government.

strictnein on November 9, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Are you against rape laws?

If not then welcome to legislating morality!

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:39 PM

But to your point, should my grandchild be forced to read literature about or attend classes on homosexuality?

Connie on November 9, 2010 at 11:39 PM

Absolutely NOT.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:41 PM

I oppose gay marriage and abortion, but I think that social cons are going about it the wrong way. You cannot legislate morality, and as long as they are pursuing legislative battles instead of battles in the cultural arena then they will lose.

DFCtomm on November 9, 2010 at 11:41 PM

And social conservatism is inconsistent with fiscal conservativism becuase society needs to spend money to enforce socially conservative laws.

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Ridiculous.

In my world “social conservatism” means the government gets the hell out of the way and allows personal responsibility and personal charity to take care of things.

To have the government intercede in any manner is a leftist ideology. Real social conservatives believe adults can manage themselves.

The only “social conservative” laws needed are the ones to protect property and lives.

ButterflyDragon on November 9, 2010 at 11:42 PM

There is no such thing as a “socially conservative law”

BKennedy on November 9, 2010 at 11:35 PM

Erhh… what? What are anti-gay adoption laws then? And all of the sodomy laws that were finally struck down in 2003? And drug laws? And anti-gambling laws?

strictnein on November 9, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Religious practices and beliefs founded this country, and will continue to inform our political debates, especially the freedom to choose. But many of the founders’ social norms are not in ascendance today. You want them back? Vote for them, and while you’re at it vote for a decentralization of political power that will allow States and localities to to enact laws that support the beliefs of local constituents.
I stand with my conservative brethren who want a more, um, Christian nation under God, but I part company with those who seem to be impatient with the people’s right to pursue happiness as they see fit.

Randy

williars on November 9, 2010 at 11:42 PM

You cannot legislate morality, and as long as they are pursuing legislative battles instead of battles in the cultural arena then they will lose.

DFCtomm on November 9, 2010 at 11:41 PM

The law is legislating morality in one form or another. The question is who’s morality?

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM

If not then welcome to legislating morality!

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:39 PM

Snarky, but ultimately you know the difference between “morality” as determined by divine law, and morality as defined by natural law. One forbids eating shellfish and being gay. The other forbids assaulting another human being. You know this, but don’t address it. Why?

ernesto on November 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM

Marriage has been one man and one woman for several millenia. Those who relentlessly attempt to force a change from this, despite overwhelming public opposition, so that their proclivities for sexual acts with persons of the same sex can be showered upon the the whole of society by using every legal trick, statist intimidation tactic and the brute force of government force (like GOProud) to do so are the ones “getting in the way” here.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Hmmm…I wasn’t referring to Gay Marriage, you jumped to that conclusion. I was thinking more along the lines of marriage licenses. And you still didn’t tell me what marriage has to do with fiscal conservatiem.

Deanna on November 9, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Planned Parenthood gets taxpayer dollars. Big social cons, them.

BKennedy on November 9, 2010 at 11:38 PM

What in the world is your point? Where did I state that all programs that get government money are socially conservative?

And from a fiscal conservative point of view, they should get no money at all.

strictnein on November 9, 2010 at 11:45 PM

The bigger the government, the smaller the person. -Dennis Prager

terryannonline on November 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM

In other words, they are true conservatives.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Are you gay friends Scottish by any chance?

To me, this is all 100% backwards. How can one be a small government/fiscal conservative if you’re a social con? Legislating morality is inherently big government.

strictnein on November 9, 2010 at 11:37 PM

They may have a little Scots blood, because they enjoy a good stout now and then. But getting to your post, how can you say that it would cost more to protect society from the unfettered damage of the Left’s programs of unlimited drug use, unlimited sexual practice, unlimited abortion, unlimited contraception, and unlimited tax dollars to pay for all of the welfare, medical, psychological, dysfunctional and criminal underclass empowering destruction that they have brought and continue to bring? Obama has only stolen three trillion dollars to keep the crap coming. Do you think a President DeMint or Palin would think of stealing from us?

To fund what?

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM

but I part company with those who seem to be impatient with the people’s right to pursue happiness as they see fit.

williars on November 9, 2010 at 11:42 PM

This is more apropo to the San Fran Libs and their Happy Meal banning than Social Conservatives.

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM

Are you against rape laws?

If not then welcome to legislating morality!

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:39 PM

Rape is the violation of one’s inherent rights. It has nothing to do with legislating morality and everything to do with protecting citizens.

You have the right to be secure in your person and property. The founders recognized the right you have to protect yourself and your property.

As our country grew, communities used law enforcement as a selling tool to promote their communities. It’s still being done to this day.

ButterflyDragon on November 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM

I oppose gay marriage and abortion, but I think that social cons are going about it the wrong way. You cannot legislate morality, and as long as they are pursuing legislative battles instead of battles in the cultural arena then they will lose.

DFCtomm on November 9, 2010 at 11:41 PM

I am going to reiterate this:

“Legislating morality” is a leftist shell game.

Obamacare publically funds abortions. What Obamacare passed by social cons? Why no, no it wasn’t. EVERY law legislates someone’s morality. It will either legislate the left’s (im)morality or the right’s morality. It will either fund the slaughter of innocents in the womb or it will not. It will either create quotas for race, gender, ad sexual orientation, or it will not.

All of these things have an effect in the fabric of society, and fixing the damage to that society is expensive. Liberal immorality is designed to maximize these costs to fabricate a need for an even larger government subsidizing ever more lopsided programs. This is the game that libertarians fail to see because they are so wrapped up in their own personal morality. They never critically examine their statements, they just associate “legislating morality” with social cons. I don’t know if it’s just political myopia or that what they actual seek is license, not liberty, and social cons don’t stand for absolute license to do whatever you please as long as the government tells you it’s a victimless act.

BKennedy on November 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM

There is no such thing as a “socially conservative law” or even a “socially liberal law.”

There is however such a thing as a socially conservative program: It’s called charity. Compare to socally liberal programs, all of which stem from government spending of taxpayer dollars.

Social conservatism is free because it frees the soul and is self containing. Social liberalism thrusts people under the thumb of a government incapable of applying wisdom, for there is always another vote to buy.

BKennedy

Well having grown up in the Bible belt, there were all kinds of silly laws, because well the “city fathers” and pastors knew better how to run our lives than we did.

I mean we should not be able to shop on sunday, because well the church said so. Cant buy beer in this county, well because Baptists prefer to buy beer in the next county as to not be seen. Restaraunts serving liquor need to have some silly nonsense called club membership.

Homebrewing of beer and wine is still probably illegal in some places.

firepilot on November 9, 2010 at 11:47 PM

This war must be fought and WON on ALL FRONTS

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:09 PM

I agree with you on the end result, believe me. But I think the opportunity right now is to speak softly and carry a big stick in the sense that we elect fiscal conservatives who happen to quietly nominate strict constitutionalists to federal judicial and Supreme Court positions. Roe v. Wade will be overturned by the Supreme Court, not by legislators or executives.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Well having grown up in the Bible belt, there were all kinds of silly laws, because well the “city fathers” and pastors knew better how to run our lives than we did.

I mean we should not be able to shop on sunday, because well the church said so. Cant buy beer in this county, well because Baptists prefer to buy beer in the next county as to not be seen. Restaraunts serving liquor need to have some silly nonsense called club membership.

Homebrewing of beer and wine is still probably illegal in some places.

firepilot on November 9, 2010 at 11:47 PM

Oh dear! Minor nuisance laws that delay your purchase by a small timeframe! I’m not saying these are good laws, but compare them to te invidious laws that tear at the fabric of society like the ones liberals advance. It’s this moral equivalence between inconvenience and evil that is the libertarian’s greatest blindspot.

BKennedy on November 9, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Rape is the violation of one’s inherent rights.

What inherent rights?

You have the right to be secure in your person and property.

Why?

The founders recognized the right you have to protect yourself and your property.

The founders based that on Christian morality.

As our country grew, communities used law enforcement as a selling tool to promote their communities. It’s still being done to this day.

ButterflyDragon on November 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM

So if selling kids for sex tourism like they do in Thailand was helpful to the community that would be fine?

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Are you against rape laws?

If not then welcome to legislating morality!

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:39 PM

I’m with you, but then again not. In general, when we talk about legislating morality, it means non-violent mutual-consenting ADULT behavior.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 11:51 PM

I’m with you, but then again not. In general, when we talk about legislating morality, it means non-violent mutual-consenting ADULT behavior.

John the Libertarian on November 9, 2010 at 11:51 PM

But it always means more than that doesn’t it?

We have to have financial regulations, insurance laws, contract laws, etc.

What do we base these things on? The socialists would have a very different concept of what is right in that regard than you do.

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:54 PM

how can you say that it would cost more to protect society from the unfettered damage of the Left’s programs of unlimited drug use, unlimited sexual practice, unlimited abortion, unlimited contraception, and unlimited tax dollars to pay for all of the welfare, medical, psychological, dysfunctional and criminal underclass empowering destruction that they have brought and continue to bring? Obama has only stolen three trillion dollars to keep the crap coming. Do you think a President DeMint or Palin would think of stealing from us?

To fund what?

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM

How is this becoming choice between the two? Either I support social conservatism, or I support far left insanity (or whatever it was you were trying to describe there)? I reject both.

Also, who knew that the DEA and mass incarceration where free?

strictnein on November 9, 2010 at 11:55 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

Really? You think we need more Senators who don’t think single women should be school teachers? Good luck with that, buddy.

Go RBNY on November 9, 2010 at 11:56 PM

And blacks who vote Republican are race traitors right?

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:25 PM

Of course not. Nothing about the Republican party or conservatism is actively trying to remove the civil rights of blacks or otherwise force them to live as unequal members of society.

The same can’t be said for social cons and homosexuals. Hell, the very platform of social cons on the issue of gay marriage is predicated on specifically denying homosexuals a civil right. And people like DeMint are somehow even worse, because he wants to extend that even further into deciding professions gays should or should not be allowed in. Wow, what a great guy. *golf clap* Fantastic defender of the Constitution (well, for some).

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 11:58 PM

In other words, they’re self-hating homosexuals.

And wow, how dare those homosexual groups, like GOProud, use the actual political process to try and bring about federal legislative change to obtain equality for themselves. They should just shut up and be happy as second-class citizens in Jim DeMint’s America, right?

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 11:23 PM

Says the tolerant left! You are quite the baton carrier for your side of the aisle.

bluemarlin on November 9, 2010 at 11:58 PM

If you are against rape, then you should be against adultery. Raising another man’s child is worse than rape.

PrezHussein on November 9, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Ernesto,

In my previous post to you I spoke about the recognition by the Founding Fathers of certain unalienable God given rights and the Founders’ stated principles, virtues and intent for the way the Republic should exist because of these rights. I’m sorry, but I haven’t the time or the inclination to apply them one by one to legalized drug use, homosexual “marriage”, evolution, and on and on. You know that you can apply conservative principles to any of those questions and you will know the answers. I hope you don’t think I’m being impolite, but I think we’ll just go in circles until I get dizzy. I don’t know if you have any bedrock principles from which you live or how you judge the Leftist agenda to be acceptable or even desirable. I know that your ideas are very different from mine. I think you have a good mind, but I don’t think you are using that much of it because you are stuck in the mud (while I’m sipping a you-know-what!) with the Leftist agenda.

tigerlily on November 9, 2010 at 11:59 PM

Anyone interested in forming a sub-sub-sub party that’s fiscally conservative, personally socially conservative, but socially libertarian as applied to public policy involving only consenting adults?

Marriage to my husband? Not the government’s business.

Gay “marriage”? Not the government’s business.

Any sort of personal agreement between two consenting adults that does not harm either or any outside person? Not the government’s business.

Abortion? Oppose – it ends the life of one without out that person’s consent. This can be the government’s business. I’m fine with federal, but I realize it falls under the state’s jurisdiction, despite being a public school graduate.

And Sen. DeMint – You’re one of my favorite representatives but pleeease stop drawing a line in the sand and alienating otherwise reliably R voters (or newly minted R voters). And if you make statements like this again, please throw in a “states’ rights” qualifier for good measure. There’s not a ton of libertarians in SC to horrify.

citrus on November 10, 2010 at 12:01 AM

The same can’t be said for social cons and homosexuals. Hell, the very platform of social cons on the issue of gay marriage is predicated on specifically denying homosexuals a civil right. And people like DeMint are somehow even worse, because he wants to extend that even further into deciding professions gays should or should not be allowed in. Wow, what a great guy. *golf clap* Fantastic defender of the Constitution (well, for some).

I don’t recall there being a civil right to the tax and other benefits associated with marriage. Nor do I recall anyone talking about barring gays from certain professions except for you.

Could you point it out to me?

BKennedy on November 10, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 11:58 PM

So homosexuals might possibly like themselves and yet… not be for an all powerful government enforcing their agenda on everyone else?

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Rape is the violation of one’s inherent rights.

What inherent rights?

To be secure in one’s person? That is an inherent right.

You have the right to be secure in your person and property.

Why?

You’re just being an idiot now.

The founders recognized the right you have to protect yourself and your property.

The founders based that on Christian morality.

Correct, on inherent rights. Rights that are not handed down by government, but via our creator. Whoever you believe that to be. It’s not a Christian monopoly on those rights. They existed since the dawn of time.

As our country grew, communities used law enforcement as a selling tool to promote their communities. It’s still being done to this day.

ButterflyDragon on November 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM

So if selling kids for sex tourism like they do in Thailand was helpful to the community that would be fine?

sharrukin on November 9, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Again, how is violating one’s inherent rights okay on any front.

You seem to be either purposely obtuse to try to make some twisted point. Or you’re trying to be so philosophical with your head-fakes that the act of arguing is more important than the substance of the disagreement.

Either way I’m not impressed with your skills.

ButterflyDragon on November 10, 2010 at 12:05 AM

If you are against rape, then you should be against adultery. Raising another man’s child is worse than rape.

PrezHussein on November 9, 2010 at 11:58 PM

I feel like I’m stepping into bizarro world.

strictnein on November 10, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Hell, the very platform of social cons on the issue of gay marriage is predicated on specifically denying homosexuals a civil right.

No it is not. If people want to have sex w/ the same gender, they can. But you cannot equate a desire to behave in a certain way with race.

Connie on November 10, 2010 at 12:07 AM

If you are against rape, then you should be against adultery. Raising another man’s child is worse than rape.

PrezHussein on November 9, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Really? I hope I am just not understanding your point! Seems to me Rape is much worse as a violent act. The other may or may not be voluntary but at times I am guessing it is voluntary.

bluemarlin on November 10, 2010 at 12:07 AM

strictnein on November 10, 2010 at 12:05 AM

It is starting to get a little swampy feeling to it..:)

Dire Straits on November 10, 2010 at 12:08 AM

…and this, my friends, is what regularly twists so many folks’ knickers about Republicans.

With all due respect, I’d sincerely appreciate the social cons keeping their religion out of my politics.

Patton on November 10, 2010 at 12:10 AM

And wow, how dare those homosexual groups, like GOProud, who claim to be conservative, but instead are soros-leftists using the actual political process the force of the Federal Leviathan to try and bring about federal unconstitutional and Leftist legislative and executive branch czar/policy/regulatory change violations to obtain equality for themselves promote the lie that they aren’t protected with the same rights as all citizens, except the unborn, in these Unite States of America in 2010. They should just shut up admit they are agents of the Left and be happy as second-class citizens Leftist liars in Jim DeMint’s and The People’s constitutionally conservative United States right?

Vyce on November 9, 2010 at 11:23 PM

RIGHT.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 12:11 AM

It is starting to get a little swampy feeling to it..:)

Dire Straits on November 10, 2010 at 12:08 AM

For the statement he is talking about, pure swamp. I am still trying to figure out how someone writes that.

bluemarlin on November 10, 2010 at 12:11 AM

ButterflyDragon on November 10, 2010 at 12:05 AM

You want to base your morality on nothing and get upset when that it is pointed out.

Nature doesn’t grant you anything. You want to call them self-evident, wave your arms a lot and call it good enough.

It isn’t.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 12:12 AM

With all due respect, I’d sincerely appreciate the social cons keeping their religion out of my politics.

Patton on November 10, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Like I said above, it isn’t necessarily about religion, even though you fall for that. Secular arguments are ignored by liberals because they prefer to bash Christians. It’s the easy way out.

Connie on November 10, 2010 at 12:13 AM

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

Free markets and individual liberty has to be defended at home and abroad which is hard to do when you’re as isolationist as many Libertarians are.

Yakko77 on November 10, 2010 at 12:13 AM

That was deep.

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM

No need for snark.
I’m a social-for the most part-and fiscal conservative but I think Demint is wrong…so that’s what I wrote.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 10, 2010 at 12:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7