We aren’t that far off
- Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 11:31
- Constitution Daily
- 501 views
- 11 comments
For some reason on this site we talk about the moderate vs. conservative debate in our party almost on a daily basis. Almost all of us are sick of this topic and really don’t want to hear anymore about it. After talking with an old friend the other day, who is a moderate, I came to the conclusion that we really aren’t that far off. Let me explain.
Of course I am a social and fiscal conservative. I can run through the platform and agree with every bit of it without any hesitation. I wouldn’t classify myself as either more socially or more fiscally conservative because I won’t vote for a pro-abortion candidate any quicker than I’d vote for a pro-tax, big government candidate.
My friend is also socially and fiscally conservative but he wants Republicans to lay off the life and marriage issues and focus, at least publicly, on the fiscal issues. He’s the type of guy who says he’s personally against abortion and believes it is a sin, but he doesn’t want the Republican Party to be branded as the pro-life, anti-choice party.
Of course I disagree with him on that front, not because his strategy is doomed to failure but because when folks say that, what they are forgetting is Democrats are branded as the pro-abortion party which currently only favors half of the voters. Why is it only Republicans get punished for the life issue? It is a 50/50 issue. The only reason Republicans get punished is because we allow ourselves to get pigeonholed into the argument. When was the last time you heard the Democrat chairman at the state or national level answer the question about life and how it is a dividing issue in their party? If the same logic is used on the Democrats, they should have only a base supporting them and not the conservative Democrats or Independents.
But anyway, back to my original point. Life and marriage are moral issues to me and most social conservatives. What moderates don’t understand is high taxes and big government are also moral issues to me. I don’t know if many conservatives think of it that way but when government gets bigger, my God given rights are slowly taken away. When government takes my money against my will, I consider it a moral issue. When they force regulations on people or businesses, rights, given to me by God, are taken away.
Since I see government in this light it is impossible to separate faith and politics. This doesn’t mean I won’t support a John McCain when compared to an Obama. What it does mean for me is come Primary Election time, I’ll work for the candidate who best represents my views. My old friend will do the same. So what is there to argue about?
We’ll both be happy if a Republican gets elected because we agree, no matter if you are a conservative or moderate, on almost all of the issues. Of course I’d be happier if a conservative were elected as he would be happier if a moderate were elected. But either way, Democrats in control advance their cause, not ours. When I have these conversations in person, not on the internet, they are always civil and not even close to the level of hostility shown on this site or any other. It is obvious to me we don’t have a major divide in our Party anymore than the Democrats do in theirs. The only divide is just a fabricated one by those who benefit most, Democrats and their media.
About the Author
Constitution Daily has written 96 stories on this site.
An Iowa based blog with the purpose of giving incentive to those actively engaged in conservative causes. Content will include Iowa and national issues ranging from politics to everyday society, but in every case you will know where Constitution Daily stands. Please feel free to contact me anytime at constitutiondaily@gmail.com.
11 Comments on “We aren’t that far off”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
i think you’re way off.
fiscal conservatives will vote for a social conservative or social moderate. we don’t care as long as he is truly a fiscal conservative.
social conservatives however will not and will never vote for a candidate who is anything but 100% pro-life. even if the candidate has impeccable fiscal credential but prefers to turn the abortion issue over to the state level. they still wont vote for them.
as a fiscal conservative , I’m tired of this litmus test on abortion. if i have to make concessions, then you guys should be willing to me us half way. i dont like abortion any more then you, its just something that you need to fight after you win back the house and senate.
LoboSolo,
Will you vote for a fiscal conservative or a fiscal moderate? You say “social conservatives will not vote for a candidate who is anything but 100% pro-life.” I was wondering if you would be willing to vote for a candidate who is not fiscally conservative? As a social conservative, what if I’m tired of this litmus test on finances?
“Thinking”: anybody who voted for Huckabee DID vote for a social conservative and fiscal moderate. And given his performance in the Iowa Caucuses, I’d say that the SoCo’s couldn’t care less about the fiscal issues. LoboSolo is right.
Anyone who supported Huckabee only cared about the social issues. Huck is no where near a fiscal con. Why settle for only one when you can have both?
Is VP another Huckabee?
I understand why people believe Huckabee to be a fiscal moderate. Though I disagree, I can see the rationale. But wasn’t Huckabee one of the only “Republicans” that was firmly opposed to the original bailout? Huckabee was actively working to elect McCain (despite his differences and pressures from those like Deace) but still came out strongly against the bailout when it was popular to stop campaigns to vote in favor of the bailout.
No, the bailout is not a complete career, but shouldn’t one of the defining issues of our time carry a significant amount of weight?
“Why settle for only one when you can have both?” As Republicans, we settled for neither when we nominated McCain. I dare you to argue that McCain is fiscally conservative in comparison to Huckabee.
How many earmarks has McCain passed? How many tax increases has he voted for?
Guy’s record is about as conservative as they come, both fiscally and socially. But he came up against a stronger personality in an age of American Idol politics dragging around the normal handicaps of media bias and an opponent that pulled in mid 90% of a major voting bloc simply because of his skin color. Throw in the fact that many mainstream party wonks hated the guy because he said nice things about and worked with the opposition—man, there was a conservative icon thirty years ago or so that actually had the audacity to drink with his opponents and call them friends. Imagine the brashness of that! I wish I could remember his name. Mix some bad economic times, partially caused by the moral failings of early 2000s conservatives and his predecessor’s tendency to rubber-stamp their crappy spending bills, and it’s little wonder McCain got steamrolled. The only surprise is that it wasn’t worse.
It’s pretty interesting that fiscal conservatives are ready to tear apart an alliance with social conservatives that has lasted over forty years because of issues they care just a nudge less about. Especially when you consider that the Democrats have been successful for the biggest part of the decade by running on social issues like “helping the poor,” anti-war stands, giving away healthcare, and “equal” rights while either ignoring or out-and-out lying about their stands on fiscal issues. Anyone remember Obama running on a couple trillion dollars of spending? Promising to raise the regressive tobacco tax? Agreeing with McCain that we should tax employer-provided health insurance? (Or going farther and saying we should do it without McCain’s proposed tax credit?) Funny, I don’t remember any of that. I remember “hope” and “change” and “equal opportunity” and a bunch of social feel-good stuff along with a bunch of out-and-out lies when it came to taxes and spending.
If they’re forced to talk truthfully about them, fiscal issues are losers for Democrats. They’ve got nothing but social issues, and even then social issues are just as much a winner for conservatives. Poll after poll shows the country in a 3-way split between conservatives, liberals, and the confused on social issues. Conservatives win the fiscal issues; they tie on the moral issues. The problem isn’t that people are ticked at the party because of their moral stands. It’s that they simply don’t believe conservatives anymore, with good reason given recent history on the fiscal issues. Democrats have taken advantage of that mistrust by avoiding the fiscal issues when they can, and lying when they can’t.
So why, exactly, is half the party ready to boot out a bunch of issues where we basically run neck-in-neck to a nose ahead, and embrace issues we win on, but only if the public starts to believe us again? It’s a poor strategy.
You want to argue about the party’s social planks, even though the disagreement is “this issue is number 1 for a half of the party and number 3 for half?” Fine. We first need to gain back the public’s trust on the fiscal issues, and to do that we’re going to have to mitigate loads and loads of damage we did to ourselves in the first half of the decade, and not on the social issues, on the fiscal ones. And, to do that, we need to first, stop fighting about the issues we’re closest to one another on, issues on which the party is already holding its own.
On McCain –
“How many earmarks has McCain passed? How many tax increases has he voted for?
He voted for the Second Economic Package which was summarized as follows, “Vote to pass a bill that allows the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions, with a total outstanding balance of up to $700 billion, and also provides tax incentives for alternative energies and contains income tax and alternative minimum tax provisions.”
He chose not to vote at all on continuing appropriations sumarrized as follows, “Vote to concur with House amendments to Senate amendments and pass a bill that continues funding at mostly the same levels as authorized in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (HR 2764) and appropriates and additional $668.3 billion with $5.6 billion in rescissions for an additional net cost of $662.68 billion.”
He chose not to vote on S 3044 which in part includes things like “…a 25 percent tax on the “windfall profits” of major oil companies, defined as those oil companies that produce at least 500,000 barrels of oil per year and meet certain other criteria (Sec. 103).”
He voted Yes to adopt an amendment that creates the United States Emergency Management Authority under the Department of Homeland Security. So yet another bureaucracy that will have to be funded.
He voted Yes to pass a resolution that increases the public debt limit to $8.97 trillion.
He chose not to vote on (HR 5501) a bill that authorizes $48 billion to the Global Fund for assistance to certain countries for combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis for the five-year period of 2009 through 2013.
So i just wanted to highlight some of the fiscal decisions that John McCain has made in his Senate career.
I guess that’s exactly my point! Why is everyone down on Huckabee as a “populist” (which I still haven’t been convinced is a bad thing) when we nominated someone who is neither socially nor fiscally conservative. Again, Huckabee has been right on every issue since entering the national spotlight. Yes, he “raised” taxes in Arkansas, but that was a COMPLETELY different matter (i.e. huge budget deficit, Democratically controlled legislature).
For Pete’s sake DVFO, you’re the one who gets mad when social conservatives have a do-or-die mentality instead of working with the opposition. Why do you have a do-or-die attitude with Huckabee on finances when he worked to get meaningful Republican principles carried out?
“Why settle for only one when you can have both?” As Republicans, we settled for neither when we nominated McCain. I dare you to argue that McCain is fiscally conservative in comparison to Huckabee.”
Thinking, how is this relevant to anything? I supported neither one in the caucus and McCain was the only one running against Obama.
Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t like McCain either but when confronted with the choice of McCain or the wannabe dictator, the choice was easy. I’d do it all over again, in a heartbeat. Obama is THAT bad and shame on anyone who did not do everything within their power to stop him.
Cute, Conservative 1…so you’re saying you knew he was going to vote for the moronic bills you’re pointing out months before he voted for them or they were even written? I also don’t see any earmarks or tax increases that the old man gave a thumbs up to in that list.
You think you’d've gotten better votes out of Huck (raised taxes more than the lusty one) or Mitt (Mr. State-Run Healthcare)?
Either way, I still stand by my contention that McCain got steamrolled (and any of the other potentials would have done the same) because of the hypocrisy of fiscal conservatives and not the tired notion out there that the only way we can win is by dropping the social conservatives.
Anyone going to tell me what constituency we’re going to pick up by dropping social conservatives? Anyone? Anyone?
Okay, maybe the stoners if we get Paul in there, but I doubt they’re going to replace the sheer number of social conservatives. Deace is an ass…but he’s got more followers than you’d think, otherwise he wouldn’t be able to be both an ass and still on the air.
“Why do you have a do-or-die attitude with Huckabee on finances when he worked to get meaningful Republican principles carried out?”
Because he hasn’t worked to get meaningful Republican principles carried out. Huck thinks it’s the function of government to control how much someone can earn and he also was for amnesty for illegals.
Huck is a pro-life big government type. He’s no conservative.
Still, if he had been the nominee, I would vote for him before I’d allow Obama to ascend to the presidency. But what does this have to do with anything?