Is the GOP at war with itself? Rush Limbaugh & the main stream media say yes. I agree, but it can be fixed!
January 24th, 2008 | by admin |Can social conservatives and libertarians co-exist? It’s my understanding that libertarians take virtually no position on morality in government which in effect is taking a position.
Recently I’ve found it harder and harder to believe that the two can exist peacefully under the banner of the Republican party.
I chalk some of that sentiment up to personal experiences as a radio talk show host. Often times some of my listening audience (which leans Libertarian) has disagreed with me on the importance of addressing social issues and the moral climate of our nation.
Traditionally the one bond that social conservatives and libertarians (and for that matter pure fiscal conservatives and the strong military & national defense conservatives) can agree upon is the idea that smaller government is better. A common belief that a big bureaucratic centralized federal government does more harm than good.
Now as I point out these various factions within the GOP I’m well aware that there are many crossovers. I myself am both socially conservative and fiscally conservative. I may put greater importance on the social issues but that doesn’t mean I’m against a strong military or lowering taxes.
What concerns me is that the libertarian leaning folks and the country club Republicans who only care about fiscal policy, are done with the social conservatives. They’d like to put us on the shelf and officially retire us from the party.
Folks that’s just not gonna work. We have to work together if we want either of our ideologies to succeed. Otherwise the Democrats are going to walk away with this thing and I’ve yet to see a Democrat at the federal level who is either a social conservative or a fiscal conservative.
I think it’s important that Republicans unite under the banner of tradition. As traditionalists, we can agree with our founding fathers that government run by men is inherently evil. It should be as small as possible and have with it all of the checks and balances for a purpose. We must also agree that this republic was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, as one nation under God. That being the case we must rally around this value system and encourage faith which produces personal virtue and in turn civic virtue necessary to the health of our nation.
These various factions have come together before and have done great things. I hope that isn’t lost, but I fear that the political climate is such that this once great alliance is faltering.
An interesting article by Marvin Olasky talking about uniting libertarians and social conservatives under the concept of smaller government is found below:
Mike Huckabee has not been able to pick up much support beyond his evangelical base, but there’s a way for him to do so. He needs to show that Christian conservative views and small government views logically go together.
The key is realizing that growth in governmental “human services” has come in part through the recognition of real problems. When a guy and a gal shack up, it’s not purely a personal matter. That’s because one result, a certain percentage of the time, is likely to be a child with a single mom, and that child at some point is likely to receive governmental support.
Or look at divorce: When children are involved, a judge’s custody decision determines where they should live, where they should go to school, and sometimes what language they should speak. The kids are at physical risk: the growth of governmental child protection agencies parallels the surge in broken families. Even kidnapping cases usually result not from “stranger danger” but from the decision of the left-out parent to regain rights extra-legally.
Overall, family non-formation or malformation leaves kids more likely to mess up in school or drop out. Teens with an absent parent are more likely to commit crimes or get pregnant. They are more likely to have mental and sometimes physical health problems. All of this leads to bigger government. The drive to expand governmental health care of children owes much to the growth of uninsured children in single-parent homes.
By Anonymous on Jan 25, 2008
Problem is, the Huckster is a BIG Government Republican. He has no interest in keeping government small. Mandatory exercise, smoking bans, global warming regulations are all big government stuff and it’s all stuff the Huckster is for.
By A believer on Jan 25, 2008
You’re believing rumors at this point and scare tactics from other candidates…
Where has Huckabee said anything about mandatory exercise?
He came out the other day and said he was AGAINST a national smoking ban leaving that up to the states to decide.
While I do think Global Warming is a crock, it seems that none of the presidential candidates will stand up and say so.
The one thing Huckabee did say that I liked was that he believes in the Boy Scout rule of leaving things better than how you found it. He’s clearly a conservationist and there’s nothing wrong with that. I don’t know that I’d put him in the camp of “wacko environmentalist” at this point.
There are some differences I have with Huckabee on government programs it seems but he still seems to be a conservative with basic tenants of letting people make decisions for themselves. He’s also someone who will stick up for the social issues that are destroying our nation. We know he’s solid there, and that is still the most important issue for our country!