Fiscal Conservative ?
Dec 20th, 2009 by Frank Knotts
We hear a lot of people, especially within the GOP establishment talking about their fiscal conservative credentials. They act as if they invented the idea, they make it seem that if you have other concerns about other issues , such as social issues like abortion and traditional marriage, that you have lost your mind.
Some go as far as telling people such as myself that we are the death knell for the GOP, because we are not all consumed by fiscal issues alone. Their one track minds can’t seem to comprehend that the social issues that they hold in such disdain actually have a very large fiscal cost. (See my articles titled “All Issues Are Relatives”).
Being fiscally conservative is very important to the nation and the citizens. But to ignore the other issues that are eroding our social fabric and that are equally important is foolish and dangerous. That is if your concern and, or your priority is the good of the nation and the citizens.
Far too many times, I get the feeling that many of these so-called fiscal conservatives, are really only interested in lower taxes and smaller government in order to die with as much money in their pocket as possible. And that is fine, they worked for it , and it’s theirs.
But what good is the money in our pocket if the nation has become nothing more than some cheap whore house , where you can do anything you want? What do we gain by keeping our money if babies are murdered in the womb ? What do we benefit as a nation, from lower taxes if our children are inundated with images of sexual perversion?
I am concerned with fiscal conservatism also, but my concern is about the freedom that being fiscally conservative gives us. If we allow the government to tax us into the poor house we lose our freedom to choose. To choose where and how we live. To choose what we drive and how we choose to insure our own health.
I am equally concerned about the direction that we as a nation are heading in, when we talk about social issues. If we allow the left to continue to dominate the conversation on social issues, then our children will be living in a crime ridden world where babies are sucked out of the womb through tubes or have scissors shoved into the base of their skulls.
Look , I don’t make any attempt to hide the fact that I have very strong feelings against abortion, and I am a believer in traditional marriage. I believe that illegal immigration is the singal most danger to our American culture. All of this being said I have never once said that we should exclude fiscal conservatives from the party. I have never said that fiscal conservatives should just shut up and let us social conservatives run the GOP. Unfortunately many so-called fiscal conservatives do believe that social issues should be hidden away and not talked about. There in lies the trouble we are having within the GOP, people who identify themselves as moderate or fiscally conservative are intolerant of those who feel strongly about moral or social issues.
So to all of you who identify yourselves as fiscal conservatives and who feel that we should not be talking about abortion, traditional marriage and illegal immigration, ask yourself, is life , Liberty , and the pursuit of happiness only about money for you ?
The gap is not so much one based on traditional values, as on the degree of harm an action does. Abortion is plainly wrong, and most people who have not been brainwashed by the public school system and our media have no problem standing up for this issue. It is wrong because it takes the life of another. But most libertarians and an increasing number of conservatives are uncomfortable with loudly opposing homosexual marriage, not because they truly support it, but because it is a consensual action between two adults that does not directly violate the rights of anyone else. People are asking, should government control behavior that is contrary to traditional values? Or should government only control behavior that harms others? And it would seem that more are taking the second view, in a kind of distasteful compromise.
Social issues are important and I have defined views on all of them. We should not run from our values which match those of the majority of Americans.
Still, I feel we should emphasize the issues which matter the most to people.
Mike Protack
This isn’t about fiscal vs. social conservatives. It’s about a certain group of people who are trying to purge the Republican Party of anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100%. Sometimes it becomes necessary to point out facts about those people which illuminate the situation. Don’t try to make it about something else.
” But what good is the money in our pocket if the nation has become nothing more than some cheap whore house , where you can do anything you want?”
And who gets to decide what I get to do? You?
(Nice statement in support of freedom and liberty, by the way.)
And since you’re talking about me, though you fail to mention my name, I am offended at the idea that fiscal conservatives are soulless creatures who only want to enrich themselves.
Fiscal conservatism is about a government that is sustainable over the long term, which ours isn’t. China basically announced yesterday that they’re not buying Treasuries anymore. So we’re screwed, because we spend more money than we can afford to. So fiscal conservatism says that we should spend less money, and that we should exercise our freedom to live within our means, personally and collectively. If we don’t, we will dive into poverty and third-world status as a nation. We’ll have 30% or greater unemployment, and people will suffer and die.
But hey, who gives a crap about that stuff as long as Frank gets to decide what’s ‘decent’ and approve what I’m allowed to watch on the TV, right?
Chris, when I talk of traditional marriage, I am not talking about passing laws to make homsexuality illegal. I am talking about protecting traditional marriages and churches from those who would use gay marriage laws to attack churches and Christians. They would use these laws to forward their agendas of normalizing what is un-natural. But more important they would use them to attack the rights of people to worship as they see fit .Such as we have already seen with their attacks on The Boy Scouts and any group that wishes to not participate in their alternative life style.
Dave says,
“This isn’t about fiscal vs. social conservatives. It’s about a certain group of people who are trying to purge the Republican Party of anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100%.” Dave please tell me where I have ever said we should purge the party of any fiscal conservative ? Because if you are speaking of my opposition to Mike Castle, then please defend his vote for cap and trade and TARP and increased CAFE standards, based on your definition of “FISCAL CONSERVATISM”.
Do I oppose Mike Castle’s stand on issues such as abortion and stem cell research, damn straight I do, and as long as I have breath I will voice that oposition. Do I also oppose him on his votes for cap and trade , TARP and increased CAFE standards, you damn straight I do, and as long as I have breath , I will oppose him on these issues as well. And if you were not so blinded by your laudable loyalty to the GOP you too would oppose him for these less than GOP like votes.
You say that it is I who would purge the GOP of people, but from where I stand it is I and those who feel as I do, who are made to feel un-welcome within the GOP. Would you have us leave or just shut up and show up on election days ? I’m not real good at shutting up as I’m sure you are aware of by now. And at some point many of us may decide to not show up and then those that feel as you do will have what you have wanted, a party without those pesky social issues. There is a reason they call us the base though, think about it.
So let me get this straight. You want me to defend Mike Castle’s vote for cap-and-trade, which I neither want to nor could do, since it was a terrible vote. Will you defend your chosen senator Thurman Adams’ vote to put Delaware under cap-and-trade?
“And at some point many of us may decide to not show up and then those that feel as you do will have what you have wanted, a party without those pesky social issues.”
Again, you’re wrong. I don’t want a party without social issues, despite you AGAIN wanting to frame this as an either-or. I’ve been to GOP meetings, and I see plenty of social conservatives with very active roles. I don’t see anyone telling them to leave. I invite you to find anyone who will say that I undermined social conservatives when I was party chair. Find one.
In fact, one could argue that I stood up for family values when no one else would, and when plenty of so-called “social conservatives” fought me tooth-and-nail at the time. I learned at the time that a lot of “social conservatives” are really good at playing the part in public, but not so good when the rubber hits the road.
So you’ll forgive me for not giving a flying crap what you or other “social conservatives” think my values or positions are.
Chris, let me stand against that group’s mentality. I am not asking government to control relationships. I do ask that government recognize that some relationships are more valuable to society than others and deserve a special place.
Dave, I have already “defended” my vote for Sen. Adams. He was strong on family values and and the NRA gave hime high ratings every year. We must make choices sometimes between issues. Mr. castle in my view has left myself at least, no choice, he is neither fiscally or socially conservative and I will not vote for him just because he is a Republican. And please Dave let me say this publicly, I hold no ill will towards you personally, we just happen to disagree , I hope the we can discuss these issues civilly. If it seems as if I am attacking you personally , it is not my intent, you just happen to be the person with the inclination to argue your point of view, I certainly do not think that you are the only one who happens to hold it. Nor am I the only person who happens to feel the way that I do about Mr. Castle and the direction of the GOP.
“..what good is the money in our pocket if the nation has become nothing more than some cheap whore house..”
Archaeologists and anthropologists learn a lot about a defunct society by examining their art and lifestyles. Let’s look at America.
Hard core pornography at the theater and on the internet and soft core porn on prime-time television.
Pornographic and violent lyrics on virtually every radio station serving the 12-25 age demographic.
Marketiing the notion to young girls that the best road to success is to look and act like a whore.
High art; like Maplethorpe’s painting of the Virgin Mary covered with feces, or Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ,’ a crucifix in a vile of urine. Top rated stuff!
The marketing to America of the ignorant, violent black urban lifestyle, where cars, drugs, basketball and fornication are the only goals worth realizing.
Abortion on demand as a form of birth control.
Ridiculing patriotism and piety.
Outlandish forms of dress and self-mutilation, as in primitive societies.
And the list goes on..
As the dominant media driver, we export this vile garbage around the world. Is it any wonder why devout Muslims call the U.S. the ‘great Satan?’
It will be our demise.
America’s moral corruption is a problem, a serious problem, but not one to be solved by way of legislative morality. Government cannot replace faith, and should not try to, for when it attempts to promote a certain brand of morality, it’s almost certain to be the wrong one, and the result will be a country of slaves to a tainted, politicized doctrine.
“America’s moral corruption is a problem, a serious problem, but not one to be solved by way of legislative morality.”
- Chris Slavens
You know what? I think I would be pretty content if we just removed the legislation that promotes immorality, and stopped all new legislation that would promote and/or finance immorality too. Unfortunatly that would probably involve some legislation that, at least loosely, promotes morality. Guess you can’t satisfy everyone.
You can’t ‘legislate’ morality. Perhaps a rejuvinated morality will arise after this nation has collapsed into violent chaos and dictatorship; of course, that could take hundreds of years.
What we have to remember in this discussion of morality is that the left is attempting to legislate its version of morality , at the cost of our more conservative view. When they attempt to pass laws that could in the future force churches and organizations who are opposed to certains life choices, based on moral principles, to accept these life styles into their organizations or be destroyed by government penalties, then government has already injected morality into itself.
I do not seek laws to criminalize homosexuallity, I do seek protection for groups and churches to make life choices of their own and to not have them corrupted by un-natural and imoral behavior that some in government have chosen to endorce for the sake of getting votes.
Now in my view the question of abortion is a much simpler one, we already have laws that make the taking of life a crime. Those who will make the argument that a baby in the womb is not life are seriously flawed. If we will protect a one day old baby from its mother killing it, then how can we ignore the murder of millions of babies just because they have not passed through the birth canal?