In response to:

'Fiscal' Conservatism Needs 'Social' Conservatism

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 11:32 AM
"As I said, drug abuse will do nothing but lead to more dependence on government. If you want legalization so you can enjoy your "right to get high," then we first need to get rid of the welfare programs. So long as they remain in place, your drug abuse puts my economic well-being at risk." Lets look at Anominus' argument. The concern is that drug legalization will lead to welfare dependency, which may be true, how much we don't know. So by this argument, we must maintain the WOD to prevent spending more on welfare. But under the current system, incarceration IS dependency, since we foot the entire bill for the prisoner, who is then saddled with a felony which decreases his/her job prospects.
nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 11:34 AM
Lower income workers tend to use more social programs, so the WOD is plausibly producing welfare dependency as well. This doesn't even touch the morality of imprisoning people for the mere act of doing drugs and the increases in police power and abuses that occur daily.
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