In response to:

'Fiscal' Conservatism Needs 'Social' Conservatism

Stuart95 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 11:23 AM
Social conservatives had their chance to show their power by ousting the most socially-liberal and otherwise highly objectionable president in history, and they came up short. I'm not willing to risk that happening again in 2016 when the D's run their next activist-liberal, Marxist puppet. So where do the R's go for more voters? Someone tell me if there is a more likely source of allies than the fiscal conservatives in the libertarian, independent, and disaffected Democrat ranks. Prager seems to assume that all social liberals are morally deficient, and some surely are. But we want only those who believe that the government has no moral authority to legislate moral behavior, and makes a mess of it any time it tries.
arvamus Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 12:15 PM
If your so-called fiscally conservative social liberals existed, they should have voted for Romney as Obama is completely lacking in the fiscal conservative department (a brainless spendthrift) while Romney had some bona fides as a social liberal that made him unacceptable to purist conservatives. Clearly like moderate Muslims, social libs are a fantasy meant to comfort. Libs who voted for Obama (all of them) share his economic illiteracy and believe all the goodies they want funded can be done from a magic money tree (those richer than them) without impacting on their own wallets. That's how stupid liberals are.
Stuart95 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 12:49 PM
Partly true, but remember that half of voters did not vote in the recent election - that's the source of allies.

Google "poll fiscal conservative social liberal" if you wish to see the actual evidence of existence of social liberals who are also fiscal conservatives.
Corbett_ Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 11:49 AM
Considering that the GOP candidate during the last election was NOT a social conservative (or any other kind), I think your argument falls to the ground.

Remember, Romney was the man who pushed through taxpayer funding for abortion in Massachusetts and gave the state homosexual "marriage" by appointing known homosexual activists to the courts.
Stuart95 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 12:45 PM
So you're telling us that fiscal conservatives, even when faced with a threat like BO, will stay home if they find fault with a Republican candidate's social outlook? That instead of voting for Romney - who would provide better economy and maybe gay marriage - they tacitly acceded to fiscal ruin AND gay marriage?

"Conservatives" can insist on purity, but the price may be much higher than accepting the need for a coalition to battle the extremely liberal activists - who know nothing of economics - that have the upper hand today.
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