The Essential Fusion
posted at 1:50 am on November 15, 2009 by Doctor Zero
printer-friendly
Ed Morrissey relayed an interesting quote from Democrat representative Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire earlier today:
“I think when you can pay for insurance, you must,” said Shea-Porter. “For those who are blessed to have insurance through their companies, they should keep it.”
Those who are blessed to have insurance through their companies? You might have thought your health insurance was part of your compensation, following a pattern set by decades-old wage controls which obliged companies to offer benefit packages to attract skilled workers. According to Congresswoman Shea-Porter, that health insurance is actually a divine blessing, like having a good singing voice. By extension, this would make the people who don’t have insurance through their companies cursed.
This is more than just a linguistic quirk. Democrats speak often of those who “win life’s lottery,” insinuating their wealth is not their hard-earned property, to which they have an absolute right. Instead, it’s pennies from heaven, and we should spare no pity for those who would catch an umbrella full of those pennies and scurry off to indulge their greed, while others are left to suffer. Those who believe government has a duty to “spread the wealth around” find it essential to compromise the idea that wealth belongs to those who earn it. Ownership is the truth that must be buried before theft can put on its Sunday best and introduce itself as “redistribution.”
Congresswoman Shea-Porter’s remarks are just the latest in a series of incidents that remind me why I become restless when social and fiscal conservatives argue. The philosophy of conservatism cannot be adequately expressed without the fusion of its moral and economic arguments. I’ve spoken with a number of liberals who became conservatives, and they rarely cite the fiscal arguments of conservatism as the reason they switched. I would imagine people who become more liberal over time say the same thing. Neither side seems to win many converts with its pie charts.
A strictly financial argument for conservatism never makes much progress with the electorate, because liberalism is presented as an explicitly moral enterprise. This is one of the big reasons it is never held to account for its practical failures. Every liberal talks up the latest huge expansion of the government as if the year is 1909, rather than 2009, and the ideas he advocates haven’t been proven disasters around the globe. Collectivist agriculture yields starvation, the trillion-dollar War on Poverty produces more poverty, political control of industries crashes those industries… and yet, it’s always Day One of the great socialist experiment, and no one has every hit on the brilliant idea of making the “rich” pay their “fair share” to fund a government crusade against want.
This increasingly stale series of fresh starts is not merely a cynical attempt to keep the population from challenging liberal ideas, by exploiting the case of historical amnesia it gained by slamming its collective head into the public school system. Confronted with the grim history of their ideology, most liberals will say it doesn’t matter if their ideas are efficient, because there is a moral imperative to follow them, and all opposition to them is fundamentally immoral. It doesn’t matter that liberalism doesn’t work, because it’s the right thing to do… the only right thing to do.
Consider the liberal reaction to the concept of the Laffer curve, described in detail here by Arthur Laffer himself. To put it simply, the Laffer curve explains that high taxes produce less revenue for the government than expected, because people change their behavior to avoid the taxes… and many of these behavioral changes result in an overall weakening of the economy, reducing the size of the economic pie government is trying to cut itself a slice of. This is why both Kennedy and Reagan increased revenue to the Treasury by cutting taxes. Young liberals try to deny the objective reality of the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, and become very confused and upset when shown the hard data. Old liberals are smart enough not to argue with the data. They just say it doesn’t matter, because steep progressive taxation is morally correct, and “tax cuts for the rich” are absolutely immoral – regardless of their net effect on government revenue.
One of the reasons liberals always sound so foolish when they discuss economics is their belief that moral certainty trumps objective knowledge. In his infamous encounter with Joe the Plumber, Barack Obama expressed it like this:
It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off… if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.
In other words, the lot of underemployed plumbers will improve when the government seizes a huge amount of money from the wealthy, keeps a large portion for itself, and distributes the remainder to poor people, some of whom will doubtless use their welfare money to hire plumbers. Keep this logic in mind the next time some fossilized liberal makes a crack about “trickle-down economics.”
The part of the conservative movement broadly defined as “social” is essential to defeating the moral argument of the Left. Electoral victory requires persuading moderate and independent voters, and even some liberals who are still open-minded enough to give the other side a hearing. Such persuasion is impossible without a compelling moral argument, because conservatism does not seem coherent without it. Say what you will about the fundamental argument of collectivism, but you can’t deny it’s simple and consistent: give us your vote and we will take care of you, at the expense of people whose greed is worthy of your hatred.
The difficulty faced by a strictly fiscal expression of conservatism can be seen in way Republican health care proposals have difficulty gaining traction. The recent House Republican proposal was given a $61 billion price tag by the Congressional Budget Office – something like 6% of the cost for the Democrats’ delirious $3 trillion fantasy. It’s a fine expression of fiscal conservatism… but without the accompanying moral argument against socialized medicine, it won’t amount to much beyond a group of well-meaning Republicans clearing their throats, tapping stacks of paper on their desks, and wondering why no one is paying attention to them.
The ideas of the Left are both ineffective and immoral. They are not strictly economic proposals. Economics affect society, an idea the Left currently understands much better than the Right. When the State achieves the massive size of our federal government – and has cocooned itself in preparation for the metamorphosis into something incalculably larger – the difference between fiscal and social policy evaporates. What is the point of claiming to be “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” when the State controls so much of your life, and asserts first claim on so much of your income… which is another way of saying it has first claim on the majority of your time?
I have always thought the embrace of liberty is the key ingredient to achieving the essential fusion between social and fiscal conservatism. I sympathize with most of the goals expressed by social conservatives. I don’t believe they can achieve those goals by imposing them through the power of a massive central State, the way liberalism has done for decades. They should see that State as an offense against the moral imperative of liberty, and relish the challenge of fighting their battles locally, after regaining the freedom we never should have been foolish enough to surrender. Collectivism is premised on the absence of respect for fellow citizens – they must be compelled to follow the collective agenda, or cared for by the State because they’re too feeble to survive without it. Both social and fiscal conservatism can meet on the common ground of liberty, which demands respect for fellow citizens. This does not require social conservatives to abandon the notion of community standards. Instead, it means they must respect the decision of those who disagree with those standards to change them… or relocate to a different community.
From liberty flows competition, of both businesses and ideas. Success in a competition of ideas requires persuasion, not compulsion. No one who is confident in the power of their ideas should fear the challenge of persuasion, just as no one who believes in the quality of their business fears the competition of the marketplace. Liberty is both powerful and moral. The embrace of liberty is something both halves of the Right can agree they are right about. I think current events prove it’s a mistake to think liberty can survive the attack of collectivism – a powerful illusion with the inherent aggression of a nightmare – without both halves of the Right defending it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
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
Another highly cogent analysis. Thanks Doc
Jeff2161 on November 15, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Is there a limit to tax cuts? Like, say, capital gains taxes. Are the current rates too high? Would cutting them further increase revenue? And what of the logical conclusion to that argument…if we cut to zero, we’ve run out of ammo, the same position our supremely low interest rates have put us. And what about the general increase in individual tax burden stemming from the SS fix? Dems may be selling faulty goods, but at least they deliver. The GOP sells us a plan, then promptly renegs on it. Who to trust then?
ernesto on November 15, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Liberal progressivism enslaves.
publiuspen on November 15, 2009 at 10:18 AM
The point that I didn’t see made – perhaps made but not pounded loudly – is that the Libs have become past masters at driving wedges between the social and fiscal, splitting apart what should be, as you say, a fusion based on liberty.
Mew
acat on November 15, 2009 at 10:55 AM
You have a point. The Dems deliver on every kick to the groin implied in their governance. The Reps, as defined by RINOs and inside the Beltway elite, don’t deliver a loving caress but once in a decade.
Yet avoiding a certain kick to the groin is still better than waiting for a caress. Conservatives can modify the Reps into a party with better policy. The Left has done nothing but destroy. The Dems are acting as barbarians inside the gate.
NaCly dog on November 15, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Morally Right arguments tend to assume that the provocateur and goalee have a moral compass defined. This is false. To claim moral standing one must muse out the foundation of that morality. To assume the morality of another’s claims doesn’t imply that those claims have been thoroughly vetted.
“Don’t let someone else do your Bible reading for you”, a common phrase. Seek the answers for yourself in order not to be denied full understanding. Yet it seems that there will always be people who will let any and everyone lead them by claiming some moral understanding, people too lazy or dumb to find their own. It doesn’t matter that the argument is in regards to health care, nor for any other fiscal subject, nor would it matter if it were for the length of a skirt or the cut of a beard, those that follow desire a standard candle. Anyone willing to offer that light will have believers. Never mind that the candle might have been formed with sewage sludge.
Conservatives willing to offer a moral component to their platform need to only understand that they aren’t going to be riding herd on a large crowd. The crowd that wants to understand is small. The crowd that prefers to let others do the “understanding” is much larger. And lazier. And dumber.
Robert17 on November 15, 2009 at 11:06 AM
This is the stuff textbooks are made of; socialist textbooks.
ericdijon on November 15, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Yes much better to eat the Dem BS right?
Makes sense./
Get real . More tripe.
CWforFreedom on November 15, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Excellent read except that your next to the last paragraph implies that a majority of social conservatives are dedicated to imposing their values through the power of a massive central State. I don’t think that is the case. In fact, it is usually an accusation made by those who despise social conservatives.
INC on November 15, 2009 at 8:38 PM
And thus it was ever so. The pie charts are for the folks who think they need a picture show and well chosen words to make their point.
We both know that’s not human nature. But when I’ve become exasperated with what’s happening to my country, when I’ve woken up to the crazy czarness of Obooboo, then Doctor Zero you will have my complete and undivided attention.
Then Doctor I will beg you for a CURE, because without it I will surely die.
That’s why I read your posts every time word for word, no skipping, no skimming, top to bottom. Every read is a pleasure in its own right. My reward is always a freshly shined nugget to aid to my stockpile.
Thanks Doc. You gave me the news.
FREEDOM!
Blacksmith8 on November 15, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Doc, thanks for the continuing ed. course. I take it that Doctor is referencing your PhD.
tim c on November 15, 2009 at 9:09 PM
This is quite hard to do in this day and age due to the Central Federal Government controlling so much of what it was never meant to have jurisdiction over. Social conservatives wants their standards implemented at the federal level because liberals have implemented their agenda through the federal government which mandates the state compliance. If I want prayer in my public schools, I cannot move to a location in the United States that allow that because of supreme court decisions and federal legislation. What community can social conservatives move to that would have the standards they want?
PrettyD_Vicious on November 15, 2009 at 9:12 PM
You underestimate the problem.
These people look back and see a century of “evidence” that socialism works. They don’t think they’re setting out on a grand experiment, they think they are applying tried and true methods.
Count to 10 on November 15, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Brilliant. Thus, applying Alinski Rules, the next time a liberal or a socially liberal fiscal conservative smirks, “You can’t legislate morality”, we can just say , “Tit for tat, turn about is fair play, sauce for the goose, etc.”. Love it.
Knott Buyinit on November 15, 2009 at 10:06 PM
er, Alinsky, that is…
Knott Buyinit on November 15, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Morality is always legislated.
True_King on November 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Dr. Zorro seems a better name given your consistently razor sharp analysis.
Wendy on November 15, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Great, clear minded analysis and presentation of reality.
Unfortunately the liberal mentality can’t be burdened by such mellow harshing realities.
Beyond that, I think those making the policies in D.C. come to realize once they go to work on that first day, that “starving the beast”, if taken too far, leaves them starving as well.
It’s gotta be difficult for a legislator to keep and maintain the conservative perspective that the most effective government is the limited one. How far are they willing to push the (correct) perspective that government isn’t the solution to our problems…
Throw into the mix a few entitlement babies, only too happy to be “organized” into believing that Obama owes them a car, house, job, and health insurance and more than enough media to tell their plight nightly to the masses.
Such is the course that human events must inevitably take when governance is reduced to politics, and statesmen are replaced by politicians.
realityunwound on November 15, 2009 at 10:29 PM
WOLVERIIIIINEEESSS
bikermailman on November 15, 2009 at 10:32 PM
This makes it so one can’t argue against it…why one can’t say that blacks and minorities have been unexcuseably hurt by Liberal Democrats…because how dare we complain when the motives were supposedly good when in fact they were evil all along.
CCRWM on November 15, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Which is why my husband stopped earning at the end of Sept and won’t start again until January…not worth it …and we give through our church to the causes WE believe in…
CCRWM on November 15, 2009 at 11:04 PM
How much money have state and local governments poured down the ethanol rat hole in subsidies? How many more dollars will be burned on cap and trade if it passes? How many jobs have been lost due to the government sucking up capital that would have created jobs? How many jobs will cap and trade kill? Why do we not include the individual income lost in the cost of all of these boondoggle federal programs?
stefano1 on November 15, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Communism has proven to be a charnel house; is that why totalitarian liberals and compassionate fascists love it so?
Dhuka on November 15, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Doctor Zero:
I collect your posts.
I’d like you to know I only collect the ones which are truly brilliant, but you are filling my HD rapidly. It is a damn shame you won’t take the helm of the movement, as I believe we are ready to truly MOVE.
I wish you the best of possible blessings, and I thank you for sharing your brilliance.
I love your writing, good Doctor, and my best regards to you.
roscopico on November 15, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Can someone please provide a link to Doctor Zero’s column archive? I’ve got a lot of catching up to do.
Yephora on November 15, 2009 at 11:54 PM
+1 (as always).
DrRansom on November 16, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Doc’s archive.
Stephen M on November 16, 2009 at 12:11 AM
You don’t run it to zero to optimize revenue. The Laffer Curve is a curve afterall. There is obviously a point of diminishing return. I think Doctor Zero’s point is that the Liberals know that raising taxes doesn’t raise revenue, but they want to do it anyway to punish the successful.
As for the dems, yes, they do deliver…faulty goods as you say.
2ipa on November 16, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Simply click on GREEN ROOM at the top of this page. Then when the list of articles comes up, click on Doctor Zero’s name. That will take you to all of his essays previously posted here. Enjoy!
publiuspen on November 16, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Doctor Zero,
Thanks again for your great posts. It’s notable that Libs always respond “Well, what about the Republicans?” – as though anybody believes that Republicans have a lock on Conservatism.
If the present revolution is showing us anything, it’s that fiscal conservatism and common-sense morality (see Epictetus, Thomas Aquinas, et al) are in fact the response of most humans to the reality of Natural Law. The unquestionable moral bankruptcy of the Left from its inception is plain to see – but it’s necessary for people like you to continue to point it out.
Bravo.
warbaby on November 16, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Another out of the park homer Doc. Liberty. The 2010 and 2012 ad campaigns write themselves.
JeffB. on November 16, 2009 at 12:20 AM
You cannot have your liberty and fiscal conservatism and respect for the Constitution without virtue from social conservatism.
You cannot have your social conservatism with a top-down government but you can with a fiscally conservative emphasis on liberty.
Both camps are related like yin-yang and both impact foreign policy to some extent.
One dies without the other eventually.
Sapwolf on November 16, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Why do I constantly tell my other pro-life supporters that the real fight is to overturn Roe vs. Wade?
Because Roe takes away our freedom by giving it to robed Robespierres, and two…
I am confident the pro-life movement will make victories at the state and local level because the Truth will persuade.
He who is foolish enough to think he can use the power of the federal govenment whether on the right or left to top-down push his/her agenda will end up eventually in the same place:
HELL!
Sapwolf on November 16, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Per Christian theology, salvation comes through grace, accessed through faith, arrived at through choice/free will. Take away the opportunity for choice/free will, and you undermine the path to faith and thus to salvation. Top-down imposition of legislated “morality” (whatever its form) erodes the freedom in which choice and free will can operate, and so attacks the very underpinnings of faith itself.
Smaller, less centralized government allows for the exercise of free will, and so maximizes the opportunities for faith to operate. Such a style of governance is, therefore, more moral.
I’m not even a theist, and I can see this.
Noocyte on November 16, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Liberals are Idiots, Conservatives are Morons, and Libertarians are perpetual adolescents.
Whenever I feel too discouraged I just say, Dude,
you are listening to Morons argue with Idiots.
My apologies to real Idiots, Morons and, Teenagers………, at least you can grow up.
:: ))
Observation on November 16, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Social Conservative priorities:
Ban abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, public nudity, work on Sunday, sale of alcohol & “recreational” drugs. Oh, and allow Christmas trees in the town square and prayer in public schools (provided it is a Christian prayer as Wiccan or Muslim prayer just wouldn’t do).
Fiscal Conservative priorities:
Lower & fewer taxes, less government regulation, well defended property rights, free trade, and smaller government.
Hmmm. As a self described Federalist I’ve got to go with the Fiscal Conservative, Doc. The social con seems only interested in establishing his religion’s strictures as law, not promoting freedom. Such a man would be just as happy under a theocracy (provided it was Christian) or totalitarian state as long as abortion was illegal and he got the Sabbath off from work.
Freedom is the foundation of any successful political movement, but the social conservative agenda doesn’t support freedom most of the time and that is why their arguments fail to sway those not of their faith. That is also the reason the Tea Party Movement has such a wide following: the Tea Party doesn’t divide it’s self over Abortion or “Domestic Unions”. The Tea Party sticks to the Fiscal side of politics and because of that has drawn many social liberals to it’s Gadsden’s Banner. Try to introduce social conservative priorities into the Tea Party and it will fracture to the ruin of us all.
Browncoatone on November 16, 2009 at 3:58 AM
What are they currently delivering?
JCred on November 16, 2009 at 6:23 AM
Funny. To dems, inheriting money is the only moral way to acquire it. Working hard is just greed.
Squiggy on November 16, 2009 at 6:53 AM
Good Work Doc. You’re getting warmer.
Economic slavery, heads….. physical slavery, tails.
Fiscal side…………………………Social side.
Either way you lose. We must fix our monetary system. It’s a matter of survival and as such a practical and moral imperative. Never talked to anyone who’s studied it in any detail who doesn’t come away shaking their heads.
Money is the link between the production and consumption sides of the economy. If that link is corrupt, both fail.
speed on November 16, 2009 at 7:18 AM
That’s a pretty broad brush you’re painting with there. Social conservatives want to “ban homosexuality?” or “ban working on Sunday?” Is there a large intersection between the people who think recreation drugs should remain illegal, and those who want to bring back Prohibition? Is public nudity legal at the moment, and opposed only by sour Bible-thumpers? I live in a part of Florida that has a lot of retirees, and I’ve got to tell you, we wouldn’t have a hard time putting together an entirely secular coalition to keep public nudity illegal.
I hate to break it to you, but prayer in schools is not only legal, but compulsory in many places, provided the children pray to Barack Obama. The “prayer in schools” movement has been pretty low-profile for a long time, but as I recall from their heyday, they were pushing for a moment of silent prayer or reflection, and made absolutely no bones about specifying what religions were acceptable. Some schools already do allow open prayer for Muslims. Here is one example of the debate over such a program, but you can Google plenty more.
You’re making exactly the kind of mistake that prompted me to write this article: asserting that every social conservative has extreme religious views, and just can’t wait to impose them on everyone else with a regime of jackbooted religious police. I hope any “fiscal con” reading my essay will at least think about the importance of social conservatives to the movement, and try to see them without preconceptions or exaggerations.
I plan a companion piece for social conservatives, explaining the importance of the fiscal cons to achieving their goals, along with the moral stature of fiscal conservatism. I hope I can address some of your other points when I write it.
Doctor Zero on November 16, 2009 at 8:14 AM
True, but we must also make sure we control how our social agenda is perceived. To many, social conservatism means pro-life and anti-gay marriage. Those two are not winning themes with vast swaths of the populace.
We need to show how fiscal conservatism is good socially, how poor people are helped by these policies and how they are hurt by liberal policies. We should explain how allowing social ideas to be decide by local elections and representatives produces a fairer and more acceptable result than the SCOTUS imposing its will on the entire country.
Kafir on November 16, 2009 at 8:32 AM
No matter how high the tax rates, tax collections never exceed about 22% of GDP. This strongly implies that 20 to 22% is the highest practical tax rate.
MarkTheGreat on November 16, 2009 at 8:37 AM
Right again Dr. Zero.
But it takes a specific mindset to accept your premise. And the real question is, do Americans still have the mindset of Americans at the founding of the republic. I think not. Today a majority accept that the Supreme Court tells us “what is right”. Today a majority (liberals + the ignorant + the gullible) feel they should not be required to move to another community to be happy. After all, what liberals believe is “right” and those disagreeing should be compelled to conform as they will be better off!
Liberty is not to be tolerated in the world of liberalism.
Can the ignorant and the gullible be convinced? Only if a sufficiently selfish reason can be found where they will benefit. Capitalism harnesses that selfishness and directs it into the energy needed to financially succeed. When tempered by Judeo-Christian morals, it works. Without the moral base it descends into chaos….as we are seeing!
The 2010 election will give us insight into the state of the American mind. If Obama is relected in 2012 we are doomed.
artman1746 on November 16, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Social Conservatives did ban homosexuality, they did ban work on Sunday, and it wasn’t oil workers and cowboys pushing legislation against whiskey and nightingales. And yes, in my state, public nudity is legal (with some exceptions) and the only people bothering to oppose it are biblethumpers. Oh, and in my state, prayer in school isn’t just disallowed, in some districts X-mas decorations on school lockers can get you expelled.
But that’s not really the point. If you push lower taxes or less government interference you can make common ground with those that don’t keep with your faith. If you push your religion you alienate those that could have been your allies. If you declare “my religion or get out” then you make enemies.
Why not make common cause on non-social issues?
Why must social causes always come first?
Browncoatone on November 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Yes, exactly!
Isn’t about time that we can declare the ‘great socialist experiment’ a failure?
Scientifically speaking, If you ran the same experiment in a large number of places under vastly different conditions and time periods and got the SAME result each time.
You should be able to definitive declare that the hypothesis that Socialism will ALWAYS fail to be correct.
WITHOUT HAVING TO RUN THE SAME EXPERIMENT, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN…
I say it’s about time we say enough with the same stupid ideas that are marketed under new names each time and always fail miserably.
Chainsaw56 on November 16, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Doctor Zero is one of the great thinkers of our time. Kudos!
College Prof on November 16, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Social liberals “redistribute” the wealth in order to keep those in poverty…in poverty.
Social conservatives “criminalize” the behavior of the poor to keep them in…poverty. Poor people go to jail for much less than rich or even middle class people. I think embezzlement is worse than selling crack… “Tough on crime” nonsense is just as class warfare as “Tax the Rich” so you have to be careful, considering the majority of criminalized behavior is not criminal at all.
It’s a slippery slope for both.
However, you must define social conservatism, because as I know it now (banned abortions, banned drugs, banned homosexual marriage, mandatory sentences, no parole, etc) it’s the opposite of limited gov’t, it’s the same goals as social liberalism but just the opposite philosophy, but either way the Gov’t is legislating something it has no business doing.
You want to make this argument? Make it about State’s rights, then we will have somewhere else to go. If they want to ban cocaine in Montana but not in Florida..fine. If they want to allow gays to marry in Cali, but not in Virginia…fine. If they want to allow abortions in Connecticut but ban them in Texas…fine. That’s how the founders envisioned the country.
It’s sad, but the mythical “Blue Dog Democrat” is about the ideal candidate.
If you want the libs to take their crap elsewhere, social conservatives need to take their crap elsewhere too and let people live how they want, no matter if you approve of their behavior or not.
Social liberals had it right before it all went to hell via the New Deal, Medicare, etc. True Social liberals believe the Gov’t needs to go the f*ck away, which is exactly what fiscal conservatives belive.
uknowmorethanme on November 16, 2009 at 9:57 AM
There is an obvious and well-founded moral argument against Liberalism:
“Thou shalt not covet”
It mystifies my why conservatives have not endeavored to explain this and clarify the concept with examples.
landlines on November 16, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Because they will turn it around and point at my stack of money.
uknowmorethanme on November 16, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Another excellent post, thank you. You say the things which must be said, that aren’t being said, and say them clearly. I look forward to each new post.
Forget the cowbell, we need more Doctor Zero.
Dana
DanaA on November 16, 2009 at 11:06 AM
What behavior is that? Theft? Dealing drugs?
Are you claiming that those behaviors are the only way the ‘poor’ can get out of poverty?????
Are you trying claim that good old fashioned ways of getting out of poverty – getting an education and working hard are somehow “criminalized” for the poor?
Let’s see, Education – controlled by the left through the NEA – yeah they’re doing a bang up job of educating the children.
What are you talking about?
Chainsaw56 on November 16, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Yup. that’s the point I was trying to make, but from the other direction. The more government stays out of people’s lives and livelihoods, the more space there is for them to define and pursue their goals (including but by no means limited to spiritual ones). Both intrusive Liberal and intrusive social conservative agendas impinge noxiously on that private sphere of activity in which liberty (and, if your metaphysics incline you thus, salvation) thrive.
Not surprising that a fellow Browncoat would see this so clearly (”can’t take the sky from me” and all that).
Noocyte on November 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM
The only hope for our nation is the total embrace of individual liberty. Persuasion and choice, not compulsion.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Kudos to Doc for another great read. Also for making it to the RCP page with this article.
ICBM on November 16, 2009 at 10:30 PM
V
SouthernGent on November 16, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Congrats on the RCP link, Doc!
misslizzi on November 17, 2009 at 5:35 AM
Thank you Doc Zero. It doesn’t get any better than this!
Metanis on November 17, 2009 at 10:12 AM