Posted by
Andrews on Monday, December 21, 2009 7:42:46 PM
I have no time to write right now, but I have stumble across an interesting new strategy on the part of the "mainstream" (read "RINO") part of the Republican party, specifically the way the branches of the party are misrepresented in
an article by Salena Zito. Not only does she suggest that the "moderates" who support compassionate conservatism are necessary to offset Democrat gains in 2006 and 2008 (when in reality it was conservatives sitting it out, meaning a more conservative candidate has a better chance, not worse), she also confuses the social and fiscal conservatives, making them one beast, which is far from the truth. There is some overlap and some social conservative issues, but rather government minimalism and fiscal conservatism. So to confuse the two is to try to scare the more socially moderate away from fiscal conservatism. Very clever, but also very dishonest.
But as I said, I lack the time to go into this in detail, so I shall have to return to this topic in the future.
POSTSCRIPT
There is one form of social conservatism I heartily endorse, as do all fiscal conservatives, ending liberal social experiments. That alone would end a lot of our societal decay. Without the government funding countless social experiments, and with families once again becoming the focus of personal ethics, there is little need for much of a governmental social conservative agenda.
On the other hand, I also have to say, though it may upset some on the right, I do ardently oppose social conservatives of the authoritarian variety, those who would force their vision of personal ethics on others through the state. Yes, we do legislate morality, it is nonsense when people say otherwise. But I believe we should only legislate morality which relates to violating the rights of others. Moral questions of a purely individual nature, where no rights are violated, are issues for individuals, for social pressure, and for other non-violent solutions. Using the threat of force to make people "do the right thing" when no other is harmed is a route to a state every bit as bad as the one the left would impose. (See "
The State and Morality" and "
A Bit More Explanation".)