Can you be a fiscal conservative without being a “social” conservative? UPDATE: Poll

I understand where Senator Jim DeMint is coming from here, but honestly, does he really believe I have to believe homosexuality or cohabitation is wrong in order to see the errors of out of control spending at the Federal level? Listen and learn my little small “l” libertarians.

Senator Jim DeMint, who is happily positioning himself as a leader of the Tea Party movement in Congress, made the statements last night on Special Report. The portion of the video I have clipped includes DeMint’s involvement in the Tea Party movement and ends with the statement that gives us the title of this post. If you would like to see the entire clip on DeMint, AP has a post here.


I see his point. Fatherless children, cohabitation in the inner cities, sexually transmitted diseases are all a cost to society that Government is more than willing to bear, in the name of compassion, or is it votes? But I am lost. Is this what the Tea Party Movement was about?

The real problem here is personal responsibility or lack there of. This Government over the last 50 years has done a marvelous job of eradicating personal responsibility. Consequences of action, alone, should be enough to stop irresponsible behavior. But the Government has eliminated such consequences by acquiescing to groups who have become a powerful force in electoral politics.

No one wants to see a child go hungry, or a man die of AIDS, or someone die because of an STD because of a lack of health care … but, just as it is not the government’s job to step in support irresponsible behavior, it is not the government’s job to outlaw individual social choices.

I do not support gay marriage. In my world, marriage is a sacrament. But neither do I support a gay marriage amendment. It’s not the government’s roll to be involved in marriage in the first place, in my view. But when the state became involved, I would imagine it can define marriage however it wishes.

My position on aborting babies is clear. It is wrong. It is life and the state should indeed be in the job of protecting life, at both ends of the continuum. That view, despite what some may say, is very much libertarian. Defense of life. The state should not be funding abortion. But even in this case, outlawing abortion will not stop abortion. It did not before and it won’t in the future.

Thus, it is my belief that the state has no business intervening in social issues, where free choice harms no one but the individual but where consequences are born by the individual and not the state.

We have a strong religious community in this country which used to provide the guidance and care in these matters, until the state usurped that role. As I have said before, I have a Priest and a Minister, and you might have a Rabbi or an Imam … I don’t want my Congressman to be any of them.

UPDATE: Take the poll on the left.

11 replies
  1. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    As always, I am shooting off my mouth before I hear the entire AP clip, but I did listen to your clip above. I still agree with Jim DeMint. Fighting for fiscal conservancy is the MOST important issue. Independant -minded Conservatives will have a multiple of differences on social issues. We have to back a coalition of Congressmen and women who support a balanced budget without raising taxes. I believe with all my heart it can be done. When that battle is won, we can work on our differences on social issues. Hopefully we will have an open-minded discussion on these issues with ever changing coalitions. That is representative government, not stupid establishment two party obstructiveness.

  2. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Chris, of course you are right to an extant, but intelligent people vary on specific social issues. That is the reason they are Libertarians, it comes from Liberty. I am socially liberal on almost every issue, I believe the Constitution allows us Freedoms to believe as we wish, but I fully support Jim to believe as he does, even if he doesn't agree with me. I am also a registered Republican and pick and choose my candidates who MOSTLY agree with me. I don't believe there is anyone who agrees with me on every issue. In Connecticut, I see little evidence that the Democrats have any differences of opinions. They are like sheep. Unfortunately, as sheep who blindly lead, the rest of us will have to go to our slaughter, too.

  3. weregettinghosed
    weregettinghosed says:

    Those that believe both need to go hand in hand, would thus like others to believe the same, others believe them not go hand in hand, they too are strong supporters of their thought. Each are genuine in their conservative efforts and ideals. One needs to look strictly at the Constitution where we see that the people have a responsibility to be fully accountable for their own pursuit of happiness, A small federal government, with fiscal responsibility is one of conservative thinking, social conservatism needs one of ideals and principles held not just by the Constitution but held close to the Bible. One can be conservative in governing principles while holding different social conservative thoughts. Is one better then the other, or right or wrong; this could be debated upon by the most genius of minds, finding in it s end each is equally good, by principles of the Constitution.

  4. VictimsRevenge
    VictimsRevenge says:

    <!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 <![endif]–>

    Jim, are you kidding me? Of course you can be a conservative about fiscal issues and still be a liberal on social issues, but when you add them together, the result is a wishy-washy moderate like Arnold Schwarzenegger. That’s why it’s so hard to beat the left and it all starts with these little mind benders that’s intended to twist your thinking around enough so they can always get things going their way, because they get you to agree with them enough to allow socialism to take control. I have tremendous respect for anyone that is willing to stand his or her ground the way Jim DeMint does.

  5. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    yep, just continue to vilify dems, lynn-paint all with that big fat brush ya got there! urghhh

    obviously you v]have no dem friends-some of mine have more conservative views than my republican friends.

    "One needs to look strictly at the Constitution where we see that the people have a responsibility to be fully accountable for their own pursuit of happiness," hosed

    Well, the meaning of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is that everyone has equal rights. there had to be government intervention to provide that-laws passed -making slavery against the law, eliminating discrimination regarding race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

    And those words are from the declaration of independence, not the constitution.


    Now, we have va

  6. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    The beauty of this country is that we don't all have to agree.  I just don't want to see the country dragged down on a partisan power grab.  I also don't want to pay to support people that won't (not can't) help themselves and people that do not belong in this country in order to buy votes.


    Kind of a "the rights of your economic fist stops at my economic nose" approach, if you will.  Do what is necessary and constitutionally viable and let us take care of our selves.  The overreaching of government programs does nothing but push the people in the direction of infantilism.

  7. winnie888
    winnie888 says:

    Missing in our society are common sense and an ability to take responsibility when we cause harm to ourselves or others (morally, financially, physically).  Why the government thinks it's their job to be a lifesaver to anyone drowning out in a sea of hopelessness (that they helped to create with welfare) is beyond my comprehension.

    So, do I agree with DeMint?  I guess 'yes' and 'no'.  I think he's shooting for an ideal that will probably never be.  If all the social issues that lead to big, liberal government he refers to were suddenly to be de-funded in an attempt to be fiscally conservative, I suppose that society would evolve in response to the lack of tax dollars supporting certain individuals' pursuits of happiness.  We must remember, that some people actually choose the welfare way of life.  Some people choose to have children out of wedlock and never marry their child's father.  Some people choose to have unprotected sex despite the known risk of pregnancy and disease.  It's their pursuit of happiness, but it comes at a huge cost to self and society whether we want to pay the tab or not…the government will continue to send us the bill.



  8. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    I have many Democrat friends and we never discuss politics. I can like someone but agree to disagree. My remarks about Democrats still stands. They are liberal about everything and they always without fail vote straight Democrat ticket.

  9. VictimsRevenge
    VictimsRevenge says:

    <cite>winnie888, </cite>That picture is a little bit scary, but I guess that's the irony, since clowns are supposed to make you laugh.

  10. winnie888
    winnie888 says:

    @VictimsRevenge…I have chosen Pennywise because our government is sooooo pound foolish…

    Actually, it's Nancy Pelosi…bwahahaha!

Comments are closed.