It’s Not SoCons vs. FiscCons…
Written by YellowJacket on November 17th, 2008I see a lot of people completely misconstruing the divide in the Republican Party when discussing where we can go from here. A popular meme by David Brooks and many others is that the “schism” in the GOP is between “Traditionalists” and “Reformers.” According to him, “traditionalists,” are old-bull GOPers who insist on a more conservative path for the party, while “Reformers,” are generally younger, more in-tune with modern culture, and thus want to “reform” the party. Of course, when Brooks and company talk about “reform,” of the party, that’s just their codeword for what they want to do - kick out social conservatives.
Now, not only is this laughable considering social conservatism is part of the “three legs” of the stool, or the Reagan coalition, or whatever you want to call it (Fiscal, Social, National Security conservatism). The real kicker here is that Brooks and his ilk make some very inaccurate implications with this type of talk. By “Traditionalists,” Brooks means older party insiders who really really want to go back to conservative roots. Yeah, right! What do you think this and many other blogs was set up to battle? Is Arlen Specter a limited government, fiscal conservative now? How about George W. Bush? How about Trent Lott? I could go on all day here.
My point is, Brooks acts like there’s a divide between fiscal conservatives who just want limited government, gosh darn it, and social conservatives, who are a plague on the GOP according to Mr. Brooks. Here’s the thing, though - the old party insiders are the ones who have been around too long, and while they may parrot conservative talking points, they certainly have not been pushing for limited government over the last 8 years. There ARE plenty of people who identify with both fiscal conservatism and social conservatism in this country, but Mr. Brooks and others who get kinda squirmy if someone has the gall to say “God,” insist that it’s really FiscCons vs. SoCons, and if we just kicked out the crazy SoCons everything would be alright.
I’m kind of rambling here, but Erick Erickson puts this all in a short and sweet way in a comment over at Peach Pundit:
Here’s the deal: the Club for Growth has never picked a pro-choice candidate. Why? Because the socially-liberal, fiscally conservative politician is, to steal from Jonah Goldberg, the jackolope of politics.
Damn straight. There are plenty of GOP “moderates,” who claim to just be pro-choice or “socially liberal,” but truth be told, they’re also the least fiscally conservative of the bunch.
17
PM
Amen. I couldn’t agree more. I know of very few social liberals (outside of true libertarians which I have no problems with) that actually follow through on the other side of the coin. Their “fiscal conservatism” at the end of the day boils down to little more than the vague idea that governments shouldn’t deficit spend (unless they have to) and that government should be efficiently run. That’s not fiscal conservatism, that’s common sense that every conservative prescribes to.
Fiscal conservatism is the idea that that the constitution means what it says. That there are only certain things the federal government is legally allowed to spend money on and nothing else. Fiscal conservatism is the idea that the federal government is bloated beyond all recognition of its intent and needs to be dramatically cut down in both size and scope. Fiscal conservatism is the idea that the maximum amount possible that can be kept by the individual should be and not taxed instead.
The reason there are these northeastern “fiscal conservatives” is because they are too conservative for the new Daily Kos Democrat party (see Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee and Chris Shays) and are too liberal for the GOP, they have no home and have made the political calculation that if they pass themselves off as fiscally conservative and socially liberal they might be able to win some GOP primaries because they have no shot of winning a Democrat primary. This is about finding a way to win elections in the north, not about belief.
This isn’t about ideology, because if it were, the ideology of these “fiscal conservatives” would make sense, but they don’t.
18
AM
The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. —John Adams
Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. —James Madison
Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry….The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. —Thomas Jefferson
18
PM
“Damn straight. There are plenty of GOP “moderates,” who claim to just be pro-choice or “socially liberal,” but truth be told, they’re also the least fiscally conservative of the bunch.”
I am not sure I can buy this. I consider myself socially liberal but the only issues that relates to is gay marriage and abortion. Not because I agree with either, but because why should the Government interfere here when we want them limited everywhere else?
The main reason I disagree with your quote above is with the under 30 crowd. Being under 30, it is nearly impossible (outside of blogs) to find a Republican who understands the conservative stance on the economy. Most are church going single issue voters.
This is just my experience, but let me tell you I have done a lot of searching for a peer republican who didn’t want to shift a good economy conversation to religion.
18
PM
I agree with Jamie’s take. I know very few Republicans who can articulate basic economic principles. I know more supposed liberals who vote for Democrats out of their greater concern for social issues that understand basic economics.
The Republicans need to shed this image of being a bunch of bible thumpers. The evangelicals need to turn down the volume and quit being such single issue voters. Bush’s waving of the gay card and abortion card allowed his economic sins to be justified.
Either we can be a suburban, economically conservative party with a socially conservative element that wins or a socially conservative party who is a rump limited to rural areas. Demographics point to the latter being impossible.
18
PM
Well Jamie, yes there are some who are more concerned with being socially conservative than limiting the size and scope of government- people like Mike Huckabee. I disagree with them just as much, trust me.
Bottom line, fighting for limited government and free markets is vital. So is fighting for the right to life and social issues - however, hear me out here. Those of us who argue for truly limited government and following the Constitution are pro-life not in the sense that we should handle it on a national level, but on a state-by-state level. That is Federalism, and if the Republican party would embrace it, it would serve the interests of both FisCons and SoCons immensely.
Being a pro-life party and fighting for traditional American values should not be abandoned - but it should be pursued more on a state-by-state level. Roe v. Wade is not a bad law because of abortion per se, but because it vastly overstepped the Federal government’s bounds in the Constitution.
This is the blueprint that conservatives need to wake up and realize, because it works beautifully as the Founders believed it would.
18
PM
That is a very good argument and I agree. But I am pretty sure if my state went pro-choice the same republicans would not be happy.
18
PM
Well the thing is, every state in the Union is already pro-choice. Overturning Roe v. Wade at least gives citizens of each state to make the call on what the culture of their state will permit.
People must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good - rather than fight over abortion at the national level, in which we currently lose due to Roe v. Wade, let’s fight it out at the state level.
If you end up living in a state that is culturally out of touch with your beliefs, a) you can move to another state, and b) you can have a much larger voice for change in your state than you could in a national argument.
18
PM
My point being that your argument which is a very valid one, isn’t made by most religous conversative republicans. If the SC decided that abortions were illegal, they would be just as happy if it was up to states to decide.
18
PM
Well, the point in all of this, which a lot of pro-choice and pro-life people can’t wrap their heads around, is that the Supreme Court can’t “decide that abortions are illegal.” Justice Scalia has spoken about this, saying that Roe v. Wade infringes on states’ rights, and even though he himself is pro-life, the Federal government shouldn’t have a role in the issue for or against abortion. This is the Federalist AND pro-life argument - because Americans are more culturally conservative than not. Therefore, when they are deciding on an issue in increasingly more local ways, more cultural conservatism will be reflected - just look at the liberal state of California voting for an amendment to ban gay marriage.
My argument may not be made often, you are right there. But it SHOULD be - and a lot more arguments revolving around Federalism and the Constitution need to be made by the Republican Party. There is nothing more conservative than a strict interpretation of the Constitution. This can be a winning issue, and it just makes sense to people - local government is best.
18
PM
medaura,
Nice blog. You can find isolated quotes to justify the Founders philosophy of Deism but that doesn’t mean that the government can’t mention religion or have certain religous values. It simply means what the 1st Amendment says it means: that the establishment of religion is forbidden. That means quite literally that the government is not allowed to select a single religion or sect as the official “church” of the USA, and nothing more.
The separation of church as state is a fairly well established principle which I see very few on the right trying to overturn.
You are a self-described atheist, but your political philosophy is fairly conservative/libertarian. I think if you stuck around you would find that you agree with a great deal of what Save the GOP is about.
Getting people like you back into the GOP is essential if we are ever going to preserve the liberty of common citizens from the tyranny of government.
I would be interested to read what you thought of the GOP in its current incarnation vs where you wished it were instead.
18
PM
Socon politics used to win elections so it will be tough for some Republicans in certain states to abandon that rhetoric. The perception of the GOP as “God’s Own Party” as one Hucknut put it recently has helped it among those who already vote right and damaged it with those who fear religion more than they love liberty. Is that rational? No, of course not. Classically liberal atheists should still vote GOP in most races, but they don’t because they have this fear of strip clubs being closed, porn mags off the shelves and no alcohol being sold on Sundays (damn you Sonny Perdue).
We would be a much stronger party if we utilized federalism to force these social issues down to the state and local level like Yellowjacket has said. If we could capture a larger share of the voters by mitigating their (irrational) fear of social issues then the GOP would be an unstoppable national force.
18
PM
What about the irrational motivation of the socon agenda, instead of getting hung up on my supposedly irrational repulsion to it?
At least for me personally, this has absolutely nothing to do with porn mags and strip clubs.
But I hate moral condescension by those who think they’ve seen the light.
18
PM
I think the socons are irrational as well believe me I do. In my world however, philosophical issues and economic issues come first, far above how I feel about whatever the social issues of the moment are (abortion is different for obvious reasons). I would vote for a Republican who was in favor of gay marriage if he aligned with my views of limited government that didn’t infringe on my personal liberty. Even though I oppose gay marriage (I don’t think the government shouldn’t be allowed to sanction or disallow any marriage), I would vote for the guy because my principle issues are economic and political freedom.
“At least for me personally, this has absolutely nothing to do with porn mags and strip clubs.
But I hate moral condescension by those who think they’ve seen the light.”
That porn and strip club issue is something I hear alot from libertarians (and I don’t blame them) so I just threw that out there.
I also hate the moral condescension, but I have been around it my whole life as a practicing Catholic. One thing to remember though is that there are a ton of people on the “religious right” who have no idea how they appear to the rest of the world. Their entire life is steeped in Jesus, God and religion. It defines everything they do and who they are.
Many of these people aren’t trying to be condescending at all nor are they trying to appear as self-righteous pricks (even though that is how they come off). They live in a “God bubble” where their best friends are evangelicals, they were raised evangelicals and they have this evangelical mindset that seeps into their conversations with other people.
I guess my message to you would be: please help us take back the GOP. We can’t take back the party if someone who has such a perfect grasp of our limited government, economic freedom, strong national defense policies rejects it because the Christian right also votes the same way.
Worth thinking about. I’ll try to read some more of your blog when I get a chance, your posts are pretty indepth.
19
AM
As REAGAN said “let them go their way”…..
19
AM
Basically the party needs to strip the pro-life language from the national platform and replace it with language calling for the revoking of Roe so the issue can go back to the states.
The Republican Party needs to fashion itself as a the party of choice for all aspects of human experience within reason. This means choice in your financial affairs, choice in your schooling of kids, choice in your states’ reproductive laws, choice in your career path, etc… Right now we are not the party of choice, but the party of restricting rights.
19
PM
Actually I would like to see us constantly pounding the message of GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION.
While the issue of abortion is very important to some people its not one of the highest priorities we should have.
We need to spend our time on things that the wide majority do care about with a passion.
Things like balanced budgets, less spending, reform or elimation of programs that aren’t effective or dont work at all. Anything that keeps the money of hard working people in their pockets and lets them make as many choices about their life as is possible.
We should NOT be afraid when something controversial comes along to stand up and say why we support or don’t support it.
We have let liberals beat us up over the domestic wire tapping issue for no reason. They can’t point to ONE SINGLE AMERICAN and say this affected them. They also aren’t telling people that this keeps them safe and explaining it so everyday folks can understand it.
Even more…MOST PEOPLE DONT CARE! They care about feeding their family, trying to pay their mortgage, hoping for a better future for there kids…..Why the idiots in Washington that are front and center as the faces of the party can’t explain this is beyond me.
Honestly look across the country and the number of GOP Governors…Overwhelming majority! Guess what…They do their jobs and will be the first to tell you that the FACES of the REP PARTY in Washington make their jobs more difficult.
We need to put them up front speaking on some of these topics instead of folks like Mitch McConnel and the others we see.