Monday, February 14, 2011

Where Were They?

My fellow bloggers and I have been going at the idea that "only social conservatives can be fiscal conservatives" at Classical Values rather hot and heavy. You can read about it here: Only Social Conservatives and here: Did the homos crash the economy?

So let me ask my Social Conservative friends why a Republican Congress spent part of 2005 dealing with Terri Schiavo instead of (in addition to) getting and keeping our fiscal house in order? The fiscal disorder was part of what led to a Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008.

The Schiavo case proved there were a LOT of social conservatives in Congress and that they had the upper hand when setting the agenda. So if only social conservatives can be fiscal conservatives wha hoppened? Is it as Cynthia Yockey says:

Fiscal conservative, social conservative (when OUT of power, fiscal promises dominate; when IN power, social vendettas dominate and the majority of fiscal promises are scheduled for the indefinite future, aka, in your dreams)
You know what I think happened? The social conservatives were/are lying. Or maybe to use a kinder gentler term: they are terribly mistaken about the connection between social conservatives in government and a fiscally conservative government.

Of course the Democrats are worse. But that is not the point. Or maybe it is: social conservatism is just (or can justify) socialism lite. Because they really are not at heart fiscally conservative when it comes to their pet projects. Which is to say that despite all their discipline when it comes to social matters such discipline does not translate into conservatism in government economic matters.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

1 comment:

Allison R Fenech said...

Okay...I haven't been following this closely (and don't have time to read it all), but I'm going to take a stab at this with a theory (and as much logic as possible)...

The statement only social conservatives can be fiscal conservatives does not necessarily mean that all social conservatives are fiscal conservatives.

So what it boils down to is how you define "social conservative." Personally, I think of gay rights as being at the forefront of social issues. However, someone else might think about the environment. Right off the bat, you can see how these two issues might have dramatically diverse impacts fiscally.

It's not that I don't think the environment is a social issue...I do. But I believe the governments role in this issues, socially, is to allow people the freedom to take necessary actions to "save the planet." Fiscally, however, the government plays no role in financing this social movement.

In essence, some people can only see things in black and white, so they label certain issues as either social or fiscal, when, in reality, they contain components of each. On these issues, I would take a conservative stance towards the fiscal aspects and a liberal stance toward the social aspects. These types of disagreements generally originate from how the terms are defined.

I'm completely guessing here at what others might be thinking. So, I could be wrong, but that's the best I've got.