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