Wake up, socially liberal fiscal conservatives
Bob, I’m going to be straight with you. I never had much respect for your political acumen before, but you’re a sucker.
You’re still spouting this nonsense about being fiscally conservative while insisting that the GOP is the problem. You buy into the media’s anti-Republican hysteria no matter what the facts are. Heck, you even believe it when Obama suggests he’s like an Eisenhower Republican.
Well, let’s talk about Eisenhower, your kind of Republican. Did you know that in his famous farewell address he warned about the debt? “We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage,” he said. “We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”
Bob, we are that insolvent phantom, you feckless, gormless clod.
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 Next »
FIFY.
While you are at it, join the Libertarian Party. The conservative party is the Republican Party.
BigGator5 on January 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM
Er, wrong and wrong.
Republicans could use a lot more active libertarians, not fewer.
And there’s nothing particularly conservative about the Republicans who are actually elected.
Nessuno on January 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM
I wish….
idesign on January 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM
This was a ridiculously insipid article. Goldberg doesn’t once address the differences between social moderates and social conservatives, BOTH of which want fiscal restraint and smaller government. The reason is: he can’t. Social conservatives desperately grasp at the chimera that their sense of moral superiority has some sort of vague impact on fiscal discipline.
John the Libertarian on January 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM
The conservative party will be called the Tea Party. The GOP can FOAD.
SirGawain on January 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM
I wish….
idesign on January 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM
Yeah. No, kiddin’.
kingsjester on January 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM
John the Libertarian on January 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM
It does. The Libertarians have been taken over by the Libertines.
kingsjester on January 18, 2013 at 2:17 PM
As a libertarian minded voter that voted for Romney, I’ll say you should read the article again.
Colin Powell is not a libertarian, much less a member of the Libertarian Party.
aryeung on January 18, 2013 at 2:17 PM
Ha!
levi on January 18, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Exactly correct.
Rebar on January 18, 2013 at 2:18 PM
While you have a point, there is a target to what Goldberg wrote:
If you want fiscal restraint, there’s no good reason to vote for Democrats. If you voted third party, that’s another argument. But I do not believe one can be a practicing moderate (of any form) after having voted for Obama.
aryeung on January 18, 2013 at 2:21 PM
How do you figure? You can believe that our federal government should balance their books without it affecting your views on gay marriage or abortion.
Doughboy on January 18, 2013 at 2:22 PM
Amen Jonah!
yes you can.
SauerKraut537 on January 18, 2013 at 2:22 PM
For many people the debt is still “out there”, a problem that they don’t see affecting their lives today.
Interest rates are very low, there’s little inflation, we seem to have no problem borrowing (or printing) more money. For these folks the results of our debt doesn’t appear to be here. It’s still “out there.”
Part of human nature is to put off a problem until it manifests itself. Getting a checkup, fixing that odd noise in the car, whatever. Folks delay fixing a problem until it’s upon them.
That’s the best explanation I can come up with.
SteveMG on January 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM
Yes, you can. It’s just that most of the people who say that, aren’t.
ramesees on January 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM
Everything busting our budget and wrecking our economy, is rooted in socially liberal policies.
Rebar on January 18, 2013 at 2:25 PM
False.
Good Lt on January 18, 2013 at 2:26 PM
Can someone explain how socially liberal fiscal conservatives aren’t the same as libertarians?
katiejane on January 18, 2013 at 2:27 PM
There’s a party for you. Join it.
BigGator5 on January 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM
Love this piece by Jonah. I feel pretty sure he’s talking about Joe Scarborough or Bruce Bartlett.
Robert_Paulson on January 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM
I agree, but this is a crisis that when it hits will hit us hard and be nearly impossible to deal with. High interest rates with the kind of debt we’ve accumulated will destroy our economy. We’ll be spending so much of our tax revenue on just servicing that debt, we’ll have nothing left for the essential services our federal government is supposed to provide(you know, like defending us!).
And believe me, I know how our cowardly “leaders” will deal with this crisis when that day arrives. They’ll monetize the debt and reduce the value of the dollar to toilet paper. Either that or they’ll flee the country. I just wish there was more of a sense of urgency out there. This is such a predictable disaster(Europe, anyone?), yet so few people have the stones to even discuss it much less take action.
Doughboy on January 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM
Libertarians failed spectacularly in the marketplace of ideas with their own party, so they took it in their heads to hijack the GOP, purge the social conservatives from it – and have it fail just as hard their first party did.
Rebar on January 18, 2013 at 2:30 PM
The land is lost, from the left, to the right.
Schadenfreude on January 18, 2013 at 2:32 PM
So John McCain and Mitt Romney were the libertarians preferred candidates, you know, since the libertarians have taken over?
aryeung on January 18, 2013 at 2:33 PM
That’s a recipe for permanent minority status in DC. Are you seriously arguing that everyone who votes Republican needs to conform to the exact same views on every major social issue? You’ll be lucky if the party garners 40% of the national vote in future elections with that kind of attitude.
Doughboy on January 18, 2013 at 2:33 PM
Aren’t they the exact kind of socially liberal squishy RINOs the libertarians just love?
Yes, yes they are.
Rebar on January 18, 2013 at 2:37 PM
There’s no such thing as a social moderate. That’s like saying you can be only a “little bit pregnant.”
njrob on January 18, 2013 at 2:38 PM
Really? Really? Do you even know any libertarians? If the libertarians aren’t secretly trying to foist Ron Paul onto you, they are pushing for John McCain, Mitt Romney, and no doubt Chris Christie. Did I miss anything in your theory?
aryeung on January 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM
No you can’t because socially liberally policies lead to poverty and a need for a economically liberal welfare state.
njrob on January 18, 2013 at 2:40 PM
And here I thought I’d heard ALL the laughably dumb excuses for John Braindamaged McLame and Mittens Liberal Wrongney. Guess I was wrong.
MelonCollie on January 18, 2013 at 2:41 PM
So if you lean right on certain social issues, but left on others, that can’t be described as moderate?
Doughboy on January 18, 2013 at 2:42 PM
How about socially neutral policies?
I don’t think we should be expanding foodstamps or welfare, for example. Those are liberal social policies.
So you’re just wrong.
Good Lt on January 18, 2013 at 2:42 PM
This crook makes Goebbels smile, many times a day.
Schadenfreude on January 18, 2013 at 2:44 PM
No. You can be described as irrational. That’s like saying a Cafeteria Catholic that picks and chooses what they want to believe is a moderate Catholic. No they aren’t. They aren’t Catholic, period.
A moderate is someone that refuses to accept reality and pick a side. They’re a chump.
njrob on January 18, 2013 at 2:46 PM
They were hardly the choice of conservatives, you must admit.
Rebar on January 18, 2013 at 2:46 PM
njrob on January 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM
You can “think” whatever you want. If you’re ignoring the reality of your choices, you’re just being foolish. If you encourage social promiscuity and abdication of social responsibility, you’re going to create the behemoth welfare state whether you “want it” or not.
njrob on January 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM
Well duh but that’s no reason to blame them on libertarians.
MelonCollie on January 18, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Being socially neutral while society is rabidly socially liberal amounts to planting your head in the sand and saying “I’m neutral!”…while liberals are putting shoeprints all over your bum.
MelonCollie on January 18, 2013 at 2:49 PM
But they were embraced by self declared moderates that laugh at conservatives and cringe when hearing libertarians. The American right is a coalition of more than two groups, you know.
aryeung on January 18, 2013 at 2:50 PM
It is all on a scale that goes no only right or left but up or down. http://www.politicalcompass.org …You can be all for a fiscal conservative and okay on social liberal. You would be in the lower right box. But after looking at the site it has Obama in the top right box because he has not come out of the closet to be on the top left box with Hugo Chavez yet. They also rate Garry Johnson on the line up down so he is not even libertarian enough for their test to be called a libertarian on both issues economic and social.
Here is my results http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=6.25&soc=-0.21
tjexcite on January 18, 2013 at 2:52 PM
You can “think” whatever you want, but you’re denying reality if you don’t realize that socially liberal policies create the environment for economically leftist policies. They create a group of people dependent on the government for survival. And that’s a stronger voting bloc than your dream of moderation.
njrob on January 18, 2013 at 2:55 PM
Which socially liberal policies are you referring to? I fail to see how someone supporting gay marriage is enabling the welfare state. Shoot, there are lots of folks who are ok with abortion being legal yet are vehemently opposed to any federal funding of it. Is that not an example of social liberalism coupled with fiscal conservatism?
Doughboy on January 18, 2013 at 3:02 PM
Fiscal Conservative/Social Liberals do exist, unfortunately.
I prefer to call them greedy libertines, but alas, they are all too real. They also share equal blame with the full blown libs for the demise of this once great nation.
I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
We (The American People) did not choose wisely.
January 22, 2013, the 40th anniversary of the choice for death.
How much longer?
pannw on January 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM
“Socially Liberal but Fiscally Conservative? I guess that means you Beleive in Big Government, but you don’t want to pay for it.”
…Mort Sahl
jaydee_007 on January 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM
Why is he writing to about 8 people? He’s talking politicians/pundits right? because there aren’t more than 8 politicians/pundits who meet this claim. Generally the socially moderate/liberal are also fiscally liberal, too.
Sorry libertarians, in DC, the only real fiscons ARE the SoCons…..in short you guyz need De Mint and others and their icky views on teh Ghey if you want to ever curb spending.
JFKY on January 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM
I don’t like to put people down but that was a moronic statement.
rndmusrnm on January 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM
The libertines can see themselves out.
Mr. Prodigy on January 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM
“Socially Liberal but Fiscally Conservative? I guess that means you Beleive in Big Government, but you don’t want to pay for it.”
…Mort Sahl
jaydee_007 on January 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM
Yup. “Compassionate” Conservative means the checkbook is wide open.
Fallon on January 18, 2013 at 3:36 PM
Easy. Gay marriage is about the attack of the State against the institution of marriage and the denial of what marriage actually is. It’s not just a contract between 2 individuals. It’s a sacred right. It’s a commitment between 2 people, not just for better times, but for better and for worse. Just like I’m sure you were fine with no-fault divorce, gay marriage helps destroy the purpose of marriage, to create a save, suitable environment for the upbringing of the next generation.
If you support legalized abortion, you’re going to get your tax dollars to support the results, which is a single-based society instead of a familial society. People treat sex as merely an act, not as something that has actual consequences and can result in a life being created. It’s created a situation where both men and women abdicate their responsibilities for the life they’ve created. The end result is more single parents, just like in no-fault divorce and gay marriage which leads to greater dependence on the State.
How can you not see that?
njrob on January 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »