A social conservative who is not a statist? Is such a thing allowed?

While I felt like a dupe of the social conservative agenda yesterday (not a new feeling, unfortunately), I was very encouraged to see M. Simon's earlier post. If what Eric Dondero reports is accurate, Christine O'Donnell disapproves of the federal war on drugs, and thinks such matters should rest with the state:

Libertarian Republican has since learned from another source, that O'Donnell went on record in firm oppositition to the war on drugs with at least one other well-known libertarian organization.
Will she have the political courage not to back down from this position? The story is developing, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed, because this may be wonderful news.

Not merely because it's news about Christine O'Donnell, who after all is only one candidate for office, who may or may not win. What makes this so potentially important is that it might indicate a bold and positive new trend among social conservatives away from statism.

As most readers know, I have a serious problem with statist social conservatism. (I think Newt "death penalty for victimless crimes" Gingrich typifies the breed.) As to why so many social conservatives are statists, I don't know, but I think it renders their conservatism suspect, for the simple reason that statism is not conservatism.

That O'Donnell is a personal social conservative is obvious. But if it turns out she is not a statist social conservative, that would be a wonderful development. As I told Simon, if she opposes masturbation, porn, or homosexuality, it doesn't concern me unless she wants laws passed reflecting her views. Nor am I threatened by the religious belief that is wrong to break the Sabbath or make graven images; it's when they want such religious law enacted by the state that freedom is threatened.

So if by her personal example Christine O'Donnell is standing for the proposition that social conservatism does not have to be statism, all I can say is "wow."

Might she be heaven sent?

MORE: From Glenn Reynolds, some good advice:

Small government is the big-tent issue. Forget that and you'll blow it, big time.

posted by Eric on 09.17.10 at 01:36 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/10064






Comments

I keep thinking about that sign my civil engineer dad had on his desk, back in a less politically correct day:

"When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's difficult to remember that your objective was to drain the swamp."

The social concerns of conservatives are alligators--many of which really are dangerous and worthy of concern. But there's a swamp that needs draining right the hell now.

filbert   ·  September 17, 2010 02:16 PM

I think it's far more important to know if they are statist or not, vice liberal, or so-con.

By definition, if they are NOT statist and work to reduce the power of the state, then the rest of their agenda, liberal, soCon, or otherwise, becomes that much more circumscribed.

DG   ·  September 17, 2010 02:33 PM

filbert,

It would be a shame to exchange one kind of train wreck for another.

In fact to drain the swamp will require sustained effort. And if the we are merely choosing our poison then the effort is not sustainable.

eric,

thanks!

M. Simon   ·  September 17, 2010 10:55 PM

Thank you for linking our post on Christine O'Donnell and the Drug War. I have this confirmed from at least 3 different sources, 2 of whom are with the Libertarian Party of Delaware.

Allow me to digress a moment. For me, the even bigger revelation, which for the life of me, I can't figure out why nobody is picking up on this, is that she was a guest speaker at the Libertarian Party of Delaware meeting on June 20 in Dover. That in and of itself is huge, and shows that she has an affinity for libertarian values. Much like Sarah Palin who in 2005/06 frequently attended Libertarian Party meetings in Anchorage, and subsequently received the endorsement of the Libertarian Party of Alaska for her Gov's race. That's another thing that never gets reported.

Anyway, I wish I could disclose to you the 3rd source on Christine and her drug war views. Believe me, it's even more powerful than her statement at the LPD meeting. The source is from an explicitly libertarian organization, that is well-known. They have her response against the war on drugs documented.

If you'd like to call me, I might be willing to give you a little more information on this over the phone. So long, as it's not for publication.

Oh, and if you haven't heard yet both Ron Paul and Rand Paul have energetically endorsed Christine O'Donnell's candidacy.

And there is reason to believe that on Ron Paul's #1 issue Auditing the Fed, Christine O'Donnell may have a very libertarian stance. That's as far as I'll go on-line.

Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican
Angleton, Texas
979-848-4575

Eric Dondero   ·  September 19, 2010 01:06 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


September 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits