As a small confidence-building measure, the SoCons could shitcan Huckabee. He is as anti-FiCon as they come and states that libertarians are the main thing wrong with the conservative movement.

Anyways, good article. I wish this detante well. From some of the comments on RedState, though, I am not going to hold my breath.

In the past, many of us supported candidates who met our criteria on social issues, but who massively grew government and spent money like drunken sailors.

Who's this "we", Kemo sabe? The flaw in all this is the fiction that the GOP is composed of fiscal cons and social cons. These are actually two of the less influential factions in the party. The business wing of the GOP carries a lot more weight, and it's a force for big government.

Every day the Right and their media find some way to disparage libertarians (especially atheists or gays) or those who hold to a nontraditional moral code.

Your "nontraditional moral code" is not even slightly compatible with the "traditional financial responsibility code". A people which is socially liberal must always be fiscally liberal as well. Liberals and conservatives both understand this - why can't libertarians? I suppose the very word "libertarian" denotes a person who is blind to this simple truth.

OK, flenser, I am a libertarian and I am, indeed, blind to that simple truth you tout. Could you please explain to me why, since I believe in, oh, legalizing drug use by adults, legalizing prostitution by adults, legalizing gambling by adults, etc., I must also be a socialist?

I'm with Fritz here.

Precisely how does not legislating the behavior of consenting adults - and therefore not requiring the extra government expenditure and force involved in policing said behavior - equate to spending like it's going out of style?

I'd say flenser's argument doesn't hold water, except it's not an argument. It's a statement of purported fact with neither reference nor support.

A people which is socially liberal must always be fiscally liberal as well.

Flenser, you are full of crap, as usual. Blow it out your ear.

On the other hand, flenser is dead on correct about the power of the pro-government, pro-big-business corporate whores in the GOP. Actually, I should not call them "corporate whores" -- I have a lot of respect for the sex workers I have known.

Flenser, you are full of crap, as usual. Blow it out your ear.

No doubt you'll be illustrating just how full of crap I am by listing all those peoples which are and have been both fiscally conservative and socially liberal throughout history. For instance, the denizens of NYC and other large cities in contemporary America.

Schnell, Fritz!

Could you please explain to me why, since I believe in, oh, legalizing drug use by adults, legalizing prostitution by adults, legalizing gambling by adults, etc., I must also be a socialist?

You're not too bright. I said that socially liberal peoples must always be fiscally liberal. Not people.

But since you ask, the sort of individual who rejects traditional morality in the social aspect of life does tend to reject it across the board. The sort of man who cheats on his wife is not going to suddenly become the picture of moral rectitude when it comes to cheating on his taxes, or cheating his customers. The division which you imagine between the social and the financial aspects of life does not really exist.

At the end of the day, libertarians cock-eyed view of human nature means that they do not even understand fiscal matters properly.

Precisely how does not legislating the behavior of consenting adults - and therefore not requiring the extra government expenditure and force involved in policing said behavior - equate to spending like it's going out of style?

Have you bothered to look at America lately? Because it is Exhibit A in how not legislating the behavior of consenting adults - and therefore not requiring the extra government expenditure and force involved in policing said behavior - equates to spending like it's going out of style.

But then, libertarianism an ideology. That's a short way of saying it does not pay much attention to what happens in the real world.

I'd say flenser's argument doesn't hold water, except it's not an argument. It's a statement of purported fact with neither reference nor support.

I guess we can't all be as substantive as you, katey.

But then, libertarianism an ideology. That's a short way of saying it does not pay much attention to what happens in the real world.

You mean like the joys of alcohol prohibition and the advantages of clandestine markets? That kind of real world? Or did you have a different real world in mind?

Actually, libertarianism is not an ideology; according to Matt Yglesias it is a "weird perversion."

http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/30/libertarians-oh-theyre-weird-a

I used to think the idea that being gay requires being a socialist was a feat of mental contortion limited to gay activists.

flenser,

I'm disappointed. There's legislation about what we can't eat, what we can't put in our mouths (I'm a non-smoker: the stuff plays hell with my sinuses, but that doesn't mean I think it needs to be banned), what chemical substances we can use under what circumstances, how often we can get pain medication, which natural and which chemical substances we're allowed to use - and all of this before you step out the door. All of them have assorted task forces, agencies, and enforcement organizations.

So how does this "not legislate" anything? Seems to me it's the exact opposite of not legislation. And, gee, right along with it is spending massive amounts of money the country doesn't have.

Real world: spending money you don't have leads to big problems. Attempts to legislate private morality (e.g. who eats what, drug use, what consenting adults do with each other in private) always fail (Exhibit A: Prohibition) and induce large-scale corruption (Exhibit A: Prohibition. Exhibit B: Just about every vice squad in existence.) I guess recognizing the problems inherent in this kind of thing is ideological, even though they happen everywhere any commonplace activity is made illegal.

Oh, and flenser, I'm way too substantive for you. Be thankful I'm assuming you're merely misguided.

The argument makes sense until it doesn't, and it is compelling until it is no longer compelling.

The trouble is that platforms must be constructed, and these platforms include things like traditional marriage and pro-life for the SoCons. It makes a difference in what kinds of judges are appointed, where the campaign money goes, who is endorsed, and a whole host of other things.

So if traditional marriage and pro-life positions are not included in the platform, then the FiCons have had their way. If so, then the SoCons have had their way. Simply agreeing to support fiscal responsibility (alone) means by the nature of the case that the platform presupposes jettisoning SoCon ideas. It is a sleight of hand in the name of "togetherness." Let me win, the FiCon says, and I'll be happy. You should be happy too since I support some of your ideas.

This is an easy way to avoid the conversation and demand that one side win over the other. No one gets further down the road with this kind of argument. It sounds nice but it doesn't accomplish much. One could just as easily ask to include SoCon ideas in the platform and demand compliance by the FiCons because, well, you know, fiscal responsibility is in there too. Right?

I'm not knocking one side or the other. I'm pointing out that the debate will occur, and the platform will reflect one side or the other. It's just the way it is.

And as for canning Huckabee, I'm all for that. He is a socialist in conservative clothing.

There are some groups you WANT to boycott CPAC. The John Birch Society, for instance. I posted a facebook comment yesterday that if the JBS stayed away because of GOProud, then GOProud should be thanked for saving the conservative movement.

I couldn't agree more. I'm what you'd call a socon (and a ficon), but I know better than to shun people who are trying to stop the onslaught on liberty and financial responsibility just because they don't come to Sunday School.

I agree, Eric - social conservatives and fiscal conservatives have got to work together. The Tea Party inspired me to get involved - I joined the Republican Party, got elected as a precinct-committeewoman and as an alternate delegate for our County's Rep. Party.
I thought I was fairly socially conservative, but compared to many in the County party, I'm a crazy libertarian! Why? Because I don't think prayer belongs in schools and I think it is fine for gay people to join the Republican Party and I don't care if there are casinos or not. Good lord, I'm pro-life - from cradle to grave - which pisses off the social conservatives who are for the death penalty (I would rather have someone rot in prison for life than accidentally kill the wrong person).
If the local Republican Party cannot work this out, those of us who are very fiscally conservative and even mostly socially conservative are eventually going to tell them to jump in the lake. I just hope we can half-way straighten out the government before that happens.

I agree on the need for civil dialogue, especially among those who agree with the following bottom line: Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets.

This is a rephrasing of what I've tried to shout, largely to no avail, in various forums since the original Tea Party eruptions 18 months ago. The original question was "does the Tea Party have a stance of social issues?"

My answer is: "Yes. The Tea Party's position on social issues is that they should be fairly debated among representatives who have been elected to restore fiscal stability to the United States."

But then, libertarianism an ideology. That's a short way of saying it does not pay much attention to what happens in the real world.

This is the most ridiculous non-argument I've ever heard. You're flaming on about the logical shortcomings of your opponents, yet that's your retort? "It's an ideology?" Do I even need to formulate the obvious reply that almost every political opinion can be described as stemming from such - and SoCon ones more than most?

The idea that opinions are tied to some nebulous idea of "tradition" contradicts what we've observed to be true: that the correlation between political opinions form from being influenced by people you associate with or listen to due to your vigorous agreement on another topic. This is why the archetypal members of the political parties have so many opinions that would seem to be contradictory.

I consider myself a libertarian, but am usually sympathetic to socon pronouncements about mainstream values. I part company when they want to use the force of the State to impose those values.

After the 2008 election, a socon blog commenter wrote that maybe the sword of Caesar was not the right tool for implementing the will of God.

That's the spirit, I thought. Or--who knows?--maybe it was the Spirit.

I've said all along that being a social conservative who just happens to believe in the smallest government possible, give me SCOTUS like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, and we've got a deal.

And for some reason, many social conservative types simply do not understand my logic, never understanding liberals real last bastion of power to ram amoral legislation down our throats is the court.

So they'll throw away their vote as protest or simply stay home. Dumb...

Add me as another person straddling the conservative: I don't think government has a responsibility to enforce traditional morality, but I do think they have the obligation to avoid passing legislation that destroys traditional morality (Johnson's "Great Society" programs being a classic example of what not to do.

However, for one moment I thought the headline might be referring to the unanimity of opinion that John Lennon's "Imagine" is is the most annoyingly liberal song of all time.

this is why the fed gov't must be limited.
too much national gov't social eng. going on.
ss and medicare and all the fed "safety net" must go. ca you want a "safety net" tell your union thugs to take a cut.

I don't consider myself a social conservative, but I certainly agree with Tex about justices like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. I've always thought that financial conservatives could forge a connection with social conservatives in calling for justices who were more interested in traditional ways of interpreting the constitution, instead of all the "living constitution" stuff we get from the left. I might not agree with some of the things that social conservatives call for, but I can agree with them in not trying to force social change on the rest of us through the courts.

"I have long failed to understand any possible logical connection between homosexuality and socialism."

The connection is simple, socialism, at least in its full blooded communist form, dispenses with private property. But, although that condition is necessary for socialism, another institution stands in the way of complete undiluted loyalty to the State -- the family.

Therefore all socialist programs have included steps to dismantle the family. The advocacy of "free love" and abortion are pillars in that platform. One socialist experiment was the Kibbutz, where all children were supposed to be raised in a common nursery.

But, even those steps are not enough. Heterosexual eroticism will always threaten to reintroduce the family. In order to limit that possibility, socialists must advocate homosexuality.

All of this was understood in ancient times, and explained by Plato in "The Republic". The model for Plato's ideal society was Sparta. Their system of military training for boys institutionalized pederasty.

Homosexuality is a political issue because socialism has become a laugh line. Homosexuality and anti-Semitism are all they have left.

As one SoCon put it:

What they don't often understand, because the media refuses to report it, is that I have over the course of time, both over the years and in the course of this campaign, quite comprehensively discussed and shown that that moral crisis is also related to, and at the root of, many of the economic challenges that we face here...

They truly believe that in order to solve the economic crisis, they must first have God-Fearing Christians in charge, dictating what is legal and what is not based on sound Biblical principles. The economic problems will then solve themselves, once the Gays, the Jews, and the Atheists have all been purged.

OK, some will let the Jews stay in, but many won't.

Some on the Left are fine with this, as mechanisms to give greater social control can be harnessed to relieve poverty, ensure equality, and by spending more and more and more, achieve social justice. They're not too keen on Zionists and Gays either, and of course, God is in the Mix.

The power of this latter group can be seen in such matters as ENDA. Is there any other legislation that has been put before every congress in the last 30 years, but shelved every time? How many people know that it's quite legal for state governments to have a strict "no gay employees allowed" policy, as no Federal civil rights legislation covers them?

That doesn't make anyone who's socially agnostic, but fiscally conservative, terribly happy. The Big Unions and the Nomenklatura are benefiting, but few others.

That wouldn't matter so much if the economy wasn't circling the drain, with huge long-term problems that are going well out of control. The Mortgage mess, where "laws were for the little people". The Deficit, now ballooning. Underfunded pension funds, medicare, social security. Real unemployment just under 20%, and Congress still doing nothing but distributing pork to the well-connected while things get worse.

Two varieties of superstition:

"The NeoCon RethugliKKKans want to make everyone slaves, to destroy society so they become the aristocratic rich lording it over the impoverished majority."

"The Socialists want to destroy society as they're Evil Demon-worshipping Satanists so they start by destroying Traditional Family Values before the Revolution"

There are otherwise reasonable people who actually believe one or the other of these memes.

I'm a conservative, because socialism doesn't work. It leads to impoverishment, not enrichment, of those who have been denied opportunities. I don't want to see people starve, or be oppressed.

But there are some in the conservative camp who lack all humanity. Their counterparts on the Left are perhaps even more inhuman, as they openly talk about "liquidation of the Kulaks" or the like. While the world is full of odious little dictatorships, the vast majority of these new aristocracies came into being with popular support, when the previous lot of aristocrats squeezed the populace too hard.

I don't like Aristocracies; be they of the very rich, the well-connected, the Union Bosses or the Executives of enterprises "too Big to Fail". A thriving, healthy middle-class, with opportunity for all to rise or fall is what we need. No-one and nothing "too big to fail". No-one and nothing "too disadvantaged to succeed".

Prohibition - for that's what the "War on Drugs" is - has led to a massive underclass with criminal convictions on record, a source of cheap labour for minimum-wage jobs. But two problems: they lose all respect for authority, and they don't believe in the American dream. "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work". Illegal Immigrant labour is now pushing them aside, they work twice as hard for half as much, as they believe that it's possible to make it, if they work hard enough.

What happens when they try to open a business, and find the odds are stacked against them? With red-tape and regulations, with required union cards, with all the numerous legislative devices in place to keep the status quo going? For Socialist Activists, for the Al Sharptons and Cynthia McKinneys, that's the only way of keeping their power base, to keep them discontented.

And meanwhile we have people on the Right concerned about "defending marriage" so after their 4th divorce they don't feel their 5th marriage is cheapened.

'lanched

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/112406/

I think I fall in the SoCon camp. What makes me a Social Conservative is opposition to abortion. I make this argument based on the civil rights of the unborn, not some vague notion of "sanctity of life" that I cannot define. In a civil context, I am altogether indifferent about others' sexual orientation. In a religious context, I might thump some bible verses that could make you uncomfortable, but a coalition is a civil, not a religious matter. So, I'll keep my opinions on that topic to myself.

My difficulty with pro-gay conservative groups is that their organizing basis is no more proper than pro-baptist conservative groups. If religious opinions are improper in a civil context, are sexual opinions any less inappropriate?

That said, we both need a measure of tolerance for those who hold contradictory opinions.

In the end, a smaller government is a less-intrusive government. It is a government that can shrug and say, "that's none of my business," when a religious guy and a gay guy disagree. We both want to be left alone and that common interest brings us together.

We can thank Barack Krishna - "I am become debt, destroyer of worlds" - Obama for alerting social conservatives to the fact that, while debt can be an existential threat to America, gays being gay or heads being high can't.

You guys are screwing up royally when you insult the John Birch Society.
Among Birchers I have found what you guys SAY you are looking for, i.e. the reconciliation of the traditionalists, the Constitutionalists, and the Libertarians.
Don't you effing morons see that the Big Left has managed to DIVIDE & CONQUER us with this unnecessary argument?
Birchers I've known understand better than anyone else I've run into, including libertarians, that the answer is the re-implementation of our Constitution. Once people get out from under the thumb of the big government empowering New World Order, all our problems will suddenly become manageable.
The thing about the Birchers is, even if we are personally "libertarian," we don't consider "libertarian" principles to be something we want to IMPOSE on people. If people in Fresno want different laws than the people of Buttfucksicko, why can't they have them? (If the people of even Buttfucksicko refuse to legalize prostitution, which they recently did, for another example, what sort of megalomaniac wants to FORCE them to legalize it?) My sort of libertarianism is more about people being free to make laws at the appropriate level that they find to be just and reasonable. My libertarianism really is a POLITICAL principle rather than a SOCIAL principle.
So, now that I've said my piece, all you Social Libertarians can take your potshots at me that I'm just another big government statist neo-con.

Funny thing is that you hardly ever hear of "traditionalists" arguing against drug prohibition on traditional grounds.i.e. that Prohibition laws are a recent failed experiment and are not traditional at all. How could they be traditional if heroin was once an over the counter medication?

Tradition evidently is: "what ever was happening when I was growing up."

Or "the Bible is eternal truth" most of which we do not follow (mixing fibers?) because we now know better. Besides polyester and cotton blends wear better than plain cotton and are more comfortable than polyester alone. And pork? We know about trichinae. No problem.

I guess once we get the gay thing figured out socons can ignore that prohibition too.

What makes me a Social Conservative is opposition to abortion.

And what makes you think an abortion prohibition will be any more effective than drug prohibition?

BTW most abortions these days are for economic reasons. If you are against abortion how do you stand on welfare? Because kids are a very expensive proposition. I know. My mate and I have raised (mostly) four of them.

Do you really want people not committed to their children making families?

I mean your position sounds good in the abstract. Then reality intrudes.

I do support the Catholic position. - If abortion is banned social services for the poor must increase. - The position has in its favor that it is rational.

In any case I'd rather not have the government policing my mate's or my daughter's vagina.

====

Which brings up another question. Why are social conservatives so in favor of prohibitions with their noted record of failure. Can't they learn from history?