Limited government is not no government

[renard_ruse]

The self and media proclaimed "fiscal conservative, social liberal" crowd sometimes like to claim that what is today (often disparagingly) refered to as social conservatism is "not really conservatism." In this, of course, they are joined by long time turds from the social left who put "conservative" in quotes.

I readily admit that I am very socially conservative with economic views that would probably be considered either centrist or perhaps even center left, at least on some issues. I'm also against aggressive war and am reasonably pro-environment. Basically the opposite of the self-styled "fiscal conservative, social liberal" crowd. However, this thread is not meant to debate the merits or demerits of my type of views with the "fiscal conservative, social liberal" crowd, but rather how they can justify the claim that they are the "true conservatives."

Is it that libertarianism is ALWAYS a bust at the ballot box so they don't want to use that mantle (I would claim most of them are not really libertarians either but that's another thread). On what grounds do they exclude so-called social conservatism from the conservatism label?

 

[renard_ruse]

Supposedly, "fiscal conservatism, social liberalism" would "win every election if only a party would embrace it."

I call bullsh*t. The party closest to that at least in popular perception (though I would personally disagree) is the Libertarian Party which regularly gets less than 1% of the vote in national elections and has always hovered around this threshold. Going back a ways, in 1980, you had John Anderson who explicitly ran as such a candidate and tried to appeal to that crowd, didn't go anywhere at the ballot box. In modern "blue states" economic conservative, social liberals don't tend to do any better then economic conservative, social conservatives, at least not in my state. Maybe in Canada, but not in most of the US. Their ideology has never dominated though its OFTEN been offered despite the claims to the contrary.

 

[KingOrfeo]

On what grounds do they exclude so-called social conservatism from the conservatism label?

On the grounds that they are wrestling with you for the mic.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Let me help you.

70% of you all are on the left or the right. You are 35% socially conservative (Newt/Bachman/Santorum/W) 35% fiscally liberal (Obama/Carter/Dukakis/ Kennedy). You are all big government because you want the rest of us to conform to your way.

The rest of us decide elections. We generally do not believe in a divine being, favor investment in small business over corporate welfare and are not afraid of gay people. We think cutting a tank program the Pentagon does not want does not make you a Communist and that investing in Education is not an subversive anti-American plot.

 

[Peregrinator]

So who decides where the limit is?

 

[renard_ruse]

Let me help you.

70% of you all are on the left or the right. You are 35% socially conservative (Newt/Bachman/Santorum/W) 35% fiscally liberal (Obama/Carter/Dukakis/ Kennedy). You are all big government because you want the rest of us to conform to your way.

The rest of us decide elections. We generally do not believe in a divine being, favor investment in small business over corporate welfare and are not afraid of gay people. We think cutting a tank program the Pentagon does not want does not make you a Communist and that investing in Education is not an subversive anti-American plot.

Though I utterly disagree with much of what you say on multiple levels, just for the sake of argument lets assume that there is even a modicum of truth in your statement. By your own admission, 30% is far from a majority of anything. 30% could be definitive in some elections, but there is no way you can form a majority forever with 30%. The math doesn't add up longterm assuming what you're claiming is even somewhat true.

 

[renard_ruse]

So who decides where the limit is?

Reasonable people determine the limits through democratic compromise rather than extremist views like anarchism or libertarianism.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Reasonable people determine the limits through democratic compromise rather than extremist views like anarchism or libertarianism.

Well, that's the thing about democratic compromise, anarchists and libertarians (and socialists and Communists) (and fascists and White Nationalists) get to be part of it too. Or not. Depends on their numbers and organization and strategy.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Though I utterly disagree with much of what you say on multiple levels, just for the sake of argument lets assume that there is even a modicum of truth in your statement. By your own admission, 30% is far from a majority of anything. 30% could be definitive in some elections, but there is no way you can form a majority forever with 30%. The math doesn't add up longterm assuming what you're claiming is even somewhat true.

Take a look at the history of Congress. Starting with the FDR years the make up of both the House and the Senate disagree that you can't hook up with the mainstream and maintain it for extended periods of time. The Democrats did it just fine for a very long time.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Supposedly, "fiscal conservatism, social liberalism" would "win every election if only a party would embrace it."

If anything the opposite is true. That's the ideology of a small ruling elite.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Al Capone and Bugsy Moran define American politics and government. Democrats and Republicans struggle to control the cops and the money, and force the peasants to build Cadillacs and pay for sports stadiums.

Every other theory is bullshit.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

If anything the opposite is true. That's the ideology of a small ruling elite.

Au contraire, monsieur. That elite prefers Romney and his slick "moderate" agenda. It has nothing to do with the true minarchist/anarchist wing, since we reject bailouts, subsidies, tariffs, etc. And, of course, the damned Fed. God or Gods damn the Federal Reserve to Tartarus.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Reasonable people determine the limits through democratic compromise rather than extremist views like anarchism or libertarianism.

Then you will always tend to Statism.

 

[eyer]

The optimum form of government, the form many of our founders believed republican constitutionalism was best suited to direct us to, is self-government...

...self-government relies totally on the equal blend of individual liberty and individual responsibility.

The degree of sway away from that equal blend...

...simply describes the degree of statism actually in place.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Au contraire, monsieur. That elite prefers Romney and his slick "moderate" agenda. It has nothing to do with the true minarchist/anarchist wing, since we reject bailouts, subsidies, tariffs, etc. And, of course, the damned Fed. God or Gods damn the Federal Reserve to Tartarus.

Youre fulla shit. Aint nobody in gubmint who aint rich and elite. Obama dont invite peasants & Niggaz to his parties.

The middleclass likes Romney, cuz he's nice, and cuz he cleans up so well. With Obama you just never know when he's gonna drop his pants to his knees to strut & swagger Nigga Style.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The optimum form of government, the form many of our founders believed republican constitutionalism was best suited to direct us to, is self-government...

If "self-government" means the same thing as "republican government" or "democratic government," it is not worth mentioning or naming separately; if it does not, it is meaningless.

 

[The_Trouvere]

A libertarian is a Republican who likes pornography and illegal drugs, and who dislikes going to church.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Though I utterly disagree with much of what you say on multiple levels, just for the sake of argument lets assume that there is even a modicum of truth in your statement. By your own admission, 30% is far from a majority of anything. 30% could be definitive in some elections, but there is no way you can form a majority forever with 30%. The math doesn't add up longterm assuming what you're claiming is even somewhat true.

Right - 30% is not a majority so I was helping your argument for calling bullshit on "Supposedly, "fiscal conservatism, social liberalism" would "win every election if only a party would embrace it." "

It is bullshit. There are too many die-hards in the "I'm right your Left" two party system that want big government.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

A libertarian is a Republican who likes pornography and illegal drugs, and who dislikes going to church.

And what would you call an anarchist. A rather recent convert from libertarianism to anarchy, in fact.

 

[eyer]

And what would you call an anarchist. A rather recent convert from libertarianism to anarchy, in fact.

A neoutopian...

 

[Sean Renaud]

Right - 30% is not a majority so I was helping your argument for calling bullshit on "Supposedly, "fiscal conservatism, social liberalism" would "win every election if only a party would embrace it." "

It is bullshit. There are too many die-hards in the "I'm right your Left" two party system that want big government.

And a simple glance at the history of Congress would show that there aren't too many die hards. There just aren't a lot of fiscal conservatives. Once you actually start talking about cutting programs, not taxes, but actual programs like food aid, housing assistence, Social Security and Medicaid and they always respond fuck you that's stupid. Because it is.