In response to:

'Fiscal' Conservatism Needs 'Social' Conservatism

helioquois Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 1:22 AM
A main legacy of Machiavelli is the instruction of his political elites on the need to divorce public morality from private morality to establish the perpetuation of the state. For Machiavelli, it was sometimes necessary for the State to act lie, to use brute force, to usurp the law to maintain political power. In America, we have embraced this version of gov't in opposition to John Adams pronouncement: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Many will disagree with Mr. Prager, but the path for future success depends on the social conservative. It is not enough to simply be frugal in fiscal matters, but to be forthright in ethics and morality.
1Falcon1 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:34 AM
WHATS THIS "WE" stuff , you maybe not me
goldilocks Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 9:43 AM
individualists don't believe in we.
helioquois Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 10:35 AM
The "we" I am referring to is the current state of our government and its ruling elites. Is there any doubt that they act immorally and in opposition to the individual citizen and usurp the individual's rights as codified in the Constitution? I think not. Our President is a prime example.
For some years now, we have been told about a major division within American conservatism: fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives.

This division is hurting conservatism and hurting America -- because the survival of American values depends on both fiscal and social conservatism. Furthermore, the division is logically and morally untenable. A conservative conserves all American values, not just economic ones.

By "social conservatism," I am referring to the second and third components of what I call the American Trinity -- liberty, "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum."

It is worth noting that a similar bifurcation does not exist on the left. One...

Related Tags: Conservatives