I am a social conservative that has no use for Huckabee in politics.

I think I am a fiscal conservative also. I don't think that the gov't should be paying churches or anyone else for social services - as far as I can see it is just a way to remove the responsibility (or sense of responsibility) from the individual to help those that are in need. (not to mention ineffective and subject to fraud)

The major issue for me though is abortion. I don't see how any other right has any meaning if the right to live is taken away. If there is no way to determine exactly when the life becomes a human life, well, let's err on the side of the possible child. After all, if we are wrong, the worst outcome is that we have are more children. But if we err on the other side we have corpses.

Rakdee,

As soon as you make that your highest value you cede the election to the Democrats.

Which means neither your social issues nor your economic ones get a hearing. So you lose twice. Very honorable.

Now if you want to win on the economic issues make your social issues tent bigger.

BTW all the socon blacks and Hispanics voted for Obama. You didn't deliver them to the R party. What good are you?

But hey - if Republicans want to be the anti-abortion by force of law party very good. May you deliver the landslides for the Republican Party you delivered in '06 and '08.

If you decide to become the economic liberty party give me a shout. I'm sitting the next one out. I'll judge you by your performance and then maybe I'll give you a vote and support in '12. Providing you can win and do the economic conservative thing in '10. And if you don't win in '10? I can wait. Probably shouldn't take you more than 10 or 30 years to come to your political senses. Assuming the socialists don't have everything nailed down by the time you decide to act.

I'm in the fortunate position of having two socialist parties to choose from. You should be so lucky.

Is any of this pertinent?
Both parties have a long record of moving right or left, depending on what they think will maintain their power base.
You are trying to argue right or left when most of it is somewhere in the middle.

Hugh,

I'm totally content with the way the Republican Party has performed in office. Cultural Socialism combined with Economic Socialism is a real winner. Just look at the election results.

In fact they have done so well my vote is considered superfluous. A number of Republicans have told me so. If they don't need me, I'm more than content to watch from the sidelines until they have something to offer that I want. After all I was a card carrying Libertarian for years. I'm used to having no effect. In '10 I can have no effect with less effort by staying home.

BTW I'm not arguing right or left. As a libertarian I'm arguing Socialism - Cultural and Economic. I want neither. Or at least only one (I come down strongest in favor of economic liberty). If the R party provides neither Economic nor Cultural Liberty and the D party provides one, well the Ds get my vote. Should I even care to get involved.

Agreed, M. Simon. If the Republicans wish to remain the anti-abortion party maybe they should change their name to that, The Anti-Abortion Party, and free up the name "Republican" for those who support a republican form of government, with economic liberty and personal freedom as the party platform.

Incidentally, seen Dr Dynamite lately? I predicted he'd vanish after election day. Maybe he was one of the Obamites who didn't get paid.

Stewart,

Dr. D has not appeared on any of my posts. And funny about him not getting paid.Made me LOL. I'm told Dr. D. had a Chicago IP so he very well may have been one of the paid workers.

BTW work on a name for the new party. There are some folks who would like to start one who have some significant pull.

Just mention it in any of my posts. OT or not.

For those saying that Christian conservatives should throw their abortion issue under the bus to win some elections - you miss the larger point. Many conservative Christians KNOW that their making abortion the #1 priority is a political loser, but must vote their conscience. Selling out one's soul for some economic cake just isn't acceptable for some. Think about that.

Crusader,

OK. If they don't want to be a political party and win elections then I see no point in helping them.

BTW if they keep that up they are headed for oblivion. Parties that don't win elections cease to be parties.

Also note: bad economies are not conducive to starting families. See the stats for the Great Depression. You know - I thought they were the party that really cared about families. So they are willing to punish the born for the sake of the unborn? It is what the Democrats have been saying about them for years. There is now evidence.

They are an evil lot. Worse because they did it in the name of doing good. But don't they all.

Hmmm. I thought Libertarianism WAS the Republican Party. Social conservatives just gravitated there because they had nowhere else to go. I'd like to make a few suggestions, but won't do that here.

I am a conservative with libertarian tendencies, but basically am an individualist who believes in capitalism and property rights. What I own is mine, no one else’s. My body is my own and I can do with that what I want as long as I do not injure others.

However there are problems with a pure libertarian philosophy. It does not reflect the reality of human nature. It equates all human behavior and fails to take in account several damaging moral hazards to society.

Social conservatists are more religious and think that morality is more important than fiscal conservatives. I am not religious but I agree that morality is more important than a balanced budget. Over the last 30 years I felt more in defense of the religious as they have come under attack by the secularists in the schools and the media. Constantly the dividing line between secularism had been changed to a war against religion and the attempt to make religion shameful or superstitious. Religious people just want to be able to practice their faith and bring up their families in their without feeling this is wrong or under attack. The Libertarians also feel that people want

Libertarians are generally pro abortion but they fail to take in account the private property rights to life of the unborn. Abortion is a problem because two beings temporarily share a body. This pits a woman’s private property rights to her body against the private property rights of the unborn. The solution is for the woman not to get pregnant unless she wants the child. No child should be murdered by its mother whether preborn or born.

As birth technology gets better and the ability for the fetus to be viable outside the womb this issue gets problematical. Eventually they will develop an artificial uterus that allows the fetus to develop without being inside the woman. The argument for the mother to say she can get rid of an unwelcome child because it is her body goes away. The real argument is not the sharing of the body but the unwillingness of woman to become a mother once she is pregnant. Many women don’t want the guilt and emotional trauma of giving away a child, so it is easier for them to convince themselves that the preborn is not a child and to kill in vitro.

The similarities of libertarians and cultural conservatives are that both do not want others to dictate how they worship or not and how they choose to live. But libertarians are less concerned about a degenerative culture and cultural conservatives realized that degenerative social mores are bad in general and for society. For instance, the increase in illegitimate children increases the likelihood that children will grow up without the stability of a single father. The children may get several male father figures but as the father figures leave, the child learns not to trust in long-term relationships.

Moral hazard is a reality that libertarians do not see as an imperative. The moral hazard of rewarding bad behavior that encourages fraud, dishonesty is true in the financial sector. The recent sub prime crisis illustrated that. Homeowners that had no personal risk in their homes were less concerned about maintaining the mortgage. The lack of consequences for the officers of the banks to maintain prudent risk postures encouraged more risky lending behaviors. The severance contracts were not tied to true performance and failed to hold those officers accountable for their poor performance in their fiduciary duties.

But the real difference between libertarians and conservatives is in foreign policy. Conservatives do see the need to intercede in foreign affairs including the use of military force for national interests. According to Ron Paul, Libertarians are against that philosophy. The liberals also agree to intervention foreign policy but their reasons are more wishy washy like for human rights abuses and deliberate starvation as in Darfur.

Personally I do not see any national interest in intervening in the Sudan, which is using a deliberate use of starvation to rearrange their population. The Sudan use of this tool is morally heinous but not the responsibility of the US. However in the Iraq War there were definite national interests involved. It got rid of a dangerous dictator that was upsetting g the Middle East and causing problems for the US. The invasion finished the unfinished Gulf War and led to a more secure and hopefully stable Iraq that will be our ally. Iraq is literally in the middle of the Middle East and allows us to have a strategic hold and ability to influence Middle Eastern affairs. Plus the Iraq War was a handy flypaper trap that encouraged Islamic fundamentalists that were prone to terror tactics to come and try and kill US soldiers on non US land. This allowed our soldiers to kill them off and teach radical islamicists that attacking US is a bad idea. Winning against AQ in Iraq does damage the lure of Wahabist ideology and the use of terror as a tactic.

Many in the Middle East are less likely to fall for islamicist propaganda since the viability of their success has been damaged.

Marriage is another issue that divides conservatives and libertarians. Historically marriage is the legitimate joining of a woman and man and sanctified by religion. So marriage is seen as more of a religious issue that a state issue. Since marriage also joined estates the issues of significant property came into the issue of marriage and the settlement of property upon the woman or man that entered in the marriage. Since any issue also had inheritance rights this involved also property, therefore property rights are involved Property issues since they are contractual was enforced my secular courts and not religious courts. Thus the state also become involved in the legitimacy of marriage.

Couples that want to become married have no problems as long as they are male and women and of sufficient age and not related too closely. Couples of the same sex have problems because many religions ban same sex activity and consider it a sin.

Since marriage is often both a religious ceremony and a license issued by the state, this is a problem. Now the state can create a new partnership or civil union license and define the property rights included in that joining. But gays often seem to be not satisfied with that but instead want to get a religious ceremony also. For that they would have to a member of a religion that allows same sex marriage.

Conservative religious people do not want their churches’ to sanctify what the religion considers a sin. This issue has split the Episcopalian Church that has existed for centuries.

Most people do not care if a civil ceremony is set up by the state. But the fear is that is not enough. There is reason behind this fear. Smoking was originally banned just in stores and airplanes. Now judges and state legislatures are gone to the point of banning it in private restaurants and some have had a ban issued in their cars and homes. Judges no longer allow a legal activity because the non-smoking advocates were not satisfied and keep pushing more and more bans especially in civil suits about children health.

Gay s have been seen as similar in that they keep pushing the boundaries and the indoctrination and propaganda in K-12 schools are evidence of this.

Gays have used the judiciary to impose their desires on the rest of the civil society without the agreement of the society. This creates a lot of resentment. Proposition 8 was an action designed to avoid a law that declared marriage is between man and woman.
So the referendum failed because society is not ready to have this imposed upon them rather than chosen. So basically to be against Proposition 8 is really a libertarian idea since that was the right to prevent a change forced upon the state.

Liberals who advocate state imposed rules and judge imposed rules are happy with this method and have been agreeable with the desires to expand and normalize the gay lifestyle. Libertarians should not be agreeable with state imposed rules and generally should be in agreement that individuals can use free choice on whether to be for or against gay marriage.

Economic conservatives are easily convinced that liberal ideas are fiscally prudent. But State mandated and run health care is not economically prudent. The expansion of CRA into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteed loans created a moral hazard and was not economically conservative. But economic conservatives did not come in force for McCain; instead they split their vote to between Obama and McCain. Religious conservatives do not want to impose their faith on others but want to freely express their faith in public and to worship as they please. But they feel constantly attacked by the society that pushes non conservative ideas as teenage promiscuity, couples living together without marriage, illegitimacy of children, same sex marriage and the public displays of homosexuality. Most religious conservatives would not care what happens in the privacy of the home but object to the flagrant displays in parades and the promotion to their children in public school of homosexuality and the encouragement of sex.

Religious conservatives are not scared of liberal fiscal policy as they are of liberal social policy. They are less prone to lean toward liberal ideas in general than secular fiscal conservatives who seem so tolerant that they are tolerant of evil.

American society since FDR and the New Deal have been conditioned that it is right for the state to take care of us. Failing to realize if the state provides for them, they have lost their freedom like a child is not free under parental rule.

Yes. Liberty presents lots of moral hazards. That is why it is best to have a moral people if liberty is to be maintained.

RAH,

The gay "lifestyle" has never imposed anything on me.

And you know gays have rights. And courts have opinions on what those rights might be. And people have the right to complain and do something about it. Or support gays in what ever ways are legal.

You want liberty without mess.

If we had started from the point that gays have the right to be left alone then all this back and forth might have been avoided.

You persecute people and they get annoyed.

The way to avoid most of that would to have been to be true to the "leave us alone principle". But no. We had to make laws. And now we have a backlash.

Well we can still persecute them damn druggies so that is something, eh?

But I do see your point. Perhaps with my naive ideas about Cultural Liberty I might be more at home with the Democrats. Evidently a lot of people who formerly identified themselves as Republicans feel the same way. And so the Republican party shrinks.

When the losses hurt bad enough get back to me.

You know where the idea that it is the duty of the government, supported by the will of the people, to stamp out evil leads don't you?

Ask a Jew some times.

It is now clear to me why the Jews stick with the Democrats despite it being against their economic interests. Because life is even dearer than property.

The "gay lifestyle" neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

With apologies to Thomas Jefferson.

RAH,

Since the time of Hippocrates 2,500 years ago people have known that abortion is the taking of life. Where have you been?

Liberty is no threat to religious conservatives because they will be left alone in their private life too.

But if social conservatives want to stand against liberty I'm sure the favor will be returned when the shoe is on the other foot.

And you know why we have the public schools in the mess they are in? It was by design. Social Conservatives were afraid of Catholics and wanted a means to indoctrinate Catholic children. Thus the push for public schools.

That is so funny. And the joke is on the social conservatives.

M. Simon,

I do not know your personnel sexual preference and do not care since that is your personal business. However I was in error about Prop 8 and reversed it. I know now it was to make law that stated marriage is between man and woman. However I do not see how that really prevents an alternative state sanction joining and the associated contractual obligations.

If gays want to form a partnership just write a partnership agreement about the obligations to each party. That is all that marriage did for man or woman. Over the centuries, the man had obligations and the woman did also. So an agreement can be done between two parties and the contract enforced through the courts.

The issue of benefits accruing to immediate family will have to be negotiated between employers. Benefits to spouses for health care are not a required item by the states. Any benefit package is determined by what is considered acceptable. However the push to expand benefits to family can be have a greater consensus if that is joined with others that want to have members of families covered that live with them, like siblings or aunts and grown children. If sufficient number of people asks for that benefit it will be offered in the employment market.

But if health benefits are disassociated from employment then the package plans can be designed for different family arrangements. If the insurance companies know that there is a market for that it will be provided as long as the demand is communicated.

I am sure that some sort of arrangement will be created for same sex couples for a partnership. However I would suggest that those interested might want to choose what contractual obligations they want between each other rather than go with what traditional marriage provides. This is obvious direction for this issue will go into and a private agreement can be done at any time. Eventually it will be common for unions for same sex parties.

Why does a free people think they need the state to do for them what they can do for themselves?

What bothers me is why judges have said that civil unions are not enough and it has to be called marriage. There are no doubt a variety of civil arrangements that can be developed for a variety of family arrangements. The FLDS multiple wives system is technically illegal but is expanding in that population. If people want to have that type of arrangement then why object. But unfortunately the Supreme Court decided against polygamy, which is difficult to change. But the Supreme Court has never decided against same sex unions, so creating an agreed framework of civil union should be easier.

What most people object is that courts impose it and it should be society that agrees and accommodates the new family partnerships.

M. Simon,

I do not know your personal sexual preference and do not care since that is your personal business. However I was in error about Prop 8 and reversed it. I know now it was to make law that stated marriage is between man and woman. However I do not see how that really prevents an alternative state sanction joining and the associated contractual obligations.

If gays want to form a partnership just write a partnership agreement about the obligations to each party. That is all that marriage did for man or woman. Over the centuries, the man had obligations and the woman did also. So an agreement can be done between two parties and the contract enforced through the courts.

The issue of benefits accruing to immediate family will have to be negotiated between employers. Benefits to spouses for health care are not a required item by the states. Any benefit package is determined by what is considered acceptable. However the push to expand benefits to family can be have a greater consensus if that is joined with others that want to have members of families covered that live with them, like siblings or aunts and grown children. If sufficient number of people asks for that benefit it will be offered in the employment market.

But if health benefits are disassociated from employment then the package plans can be designed for different family arrangements. If the insurance companies know that there is a market for that it will be provided as long as the demand is communicated.

I am sure that some sort of arrangement will be created for same sex couples for a partnership. However I would suggest that those interested might want to choose what contractual obligations they want between each other rather than go with what traditional marriage provides. This is obvious direction for this issue will go into and a private agreement can be done at any time. Eventually it will be common for unions for same sex parties.

Why does a free people think they need the state to do for them what they can do for themselves?

What bothers me is why judges have said that civil unions are not enough and it has to be called marriage. There are no doubt a variety of civil arrangements that can be developed for a variety of family arrangements. The FLDS multiple wives system is technically illegal but is expanding in that population. If people want to have that type of arrangement then why object. But unfortunately the Supreme Court decided against polygamy, which is difficult to change. But the Supreme Court has never decided against same sex unions, so creating an agreed framework of civil union should be easier.

What most people object is that courts impose it and it should be society that agrees and accommodates the new family partnerships.

Sorry about the double post.

The irony about public schools is that I as a non-Catholic and non-religious parent sent my son to Catholic High School since they have a more tolerant and are open to being less politically correct.

By that they are more reasonable about a lot of the zero tolerance crap and discussions are freer. My son challenged a lot of liberal precepts without being punished. Gun control was a great one and never a suggestion he was a possible criminal was made. Generally when a class was opened for discussion every one looked to him since he liked to argue.

So Catholic High School was the better choice for an agnostic white male, than public school, plus he got a more complete education.

Back to libertarians and conservatives, libertarians generally push individual liberty and so do conservatives. But conservatives also like pro order society and religious conservatives can often develop into authoritarian regimes and so do liberals who advocate a state imposed control. This is a danger that all freedom-loving individuals have to fight against.

However Both Reagan, Bush1 and Bush 2 have not generally abused the state apparatus against individual liberty. The biggest danger is that the Patriot Act was a potential danger used in the wrong hands. I hope that Obama does not qualify as the wrong hands. I saw during the Clinton Administration attempts by HUD and other Cabinet officials to wage war against locals who protested and Waxman’s with the FDA war against tobacco.

Generally I have seen liberties get lessened in liberal administrations than conservative ones. I appreciated Bush statements a month or so ago about the oil prices when it was $150 a barrel that he would not presume to tell people how to conserve fuel and power.
Somehow I remember Carter who did presume to tell people and Michelle Obama’s statement made months ago how people would be required to change their lifestyle scares me.

The reason that Obama was voted in was that Republicans did not vote for McCain. Why they failed to turn out is the question. I do not know how much that was from the media push to make it seem inevitable that Obama would win. But when GOP majority counties fail to win the vote and the Democrats voted in larger numbers even though they number 60,000 less in a county is an indication that The GOP decided to sit this election out.

This does not indicate that independents made the difference since it is hard to know whether they voted GOP or Democrat.

So this election was failure of the GOP to vote, not that the Democrats had an overwhelming advantage. The religious right generally does vote in greater numbers than the libertarian block, so as long as they stay with the GOP that helps the GOP. I think the fiscally conservatives may have been the less enthused this election, as they were in 2006.

Those that choose to sit out elections when the choice is socialism or capitalism are choosing a worse evil. Under socialism any non accepted lifestyle will have no protection since they do not believe the constitution is to prevent the government to rule us rather than the other way.

Libertarians will face the same evils as the rest.

RAH,

Ironically the Catholic School System exists because of a socon/progressive alliance to institute mandatory schooling in order to indoctrinate newly arrived Catholics.

The progressives finally got the upper hand and now look at where we are.

BTW it was the same socon/progressive alliance that brought us alcohol prohibition.

So we see where the cultural socialist impulse leads. Ultimately to a bad end. BTW that was one of the issues that helped change politic in 1932. Republicans were drys. Democrats were wets.

Socons have always been cultural socialists. And like all socialism it generally lead to a bad end.