We have been going at the idea that “only social conservatives can be fiscal conservatives” here at Classical Values rather hot and heavy. You can read about it here: Only Social Conservatives and here: Did the homos crash the economy?
So let me ask my Social Conservative friends why a Republican Congress spent part of 2005 dealing with Terri Schiavo instead of (in addition to) getting and keeping our fiscal house in order? The fiscal disorder was part of what led to a Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008.
The Schiavo case proved there were a LOT of social conservatives in Congress and that they had the upper hand when setting the agenda. So if only social conservatives can be fiscal conservatives wha hoppened? Is it as Cynthia Yockey says:
Fiscal conservative, social conservative (when OUT of power, fiscal promises dominate; when IN power, social vendettas dominate and the majority of fiscal promises are scheduled for the indefinite future, aka, in your dreams)
You know what I think happened? The social conservatives were/are lying. Or maybe to use a kinder gentler term: they are terribly mistaken about the connection between social conservatives in government and a fiscally conservative government.
Of course the Democrats are worse. But that is not the point. Or maybe it is: social conservatism is just (or can justify) socialism lite. Because they really are not at heart fiscally conservative when it comes to their pet projects. Which is to say that despite all their discipline when it comes to social matters such discipline does not translate into conservatism in government economic matters.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
6 responses to “Where Were They?”
Regarding Cynthia Yockey’s comment, the more likely explanation is that the Attitude in Washington is heavily biased in favor of Government Spending, and that when supposedly conservative people get to Washington they get “rolled” and “flipped” into spend junkies. The only part of their agenda which survives is the non-fiscal part.
Moderates cannot withstand this force at all. Conservatives can only withstand it with great difficulty. My Senator Tom Coburn is an example of the Kind of Senator we need, and to a lesser extent so is Jim Inhofe.
But even this last election had the Republicans trying to backtrack on spending cut promises.
Ron Paul is no Conservative and yet he is a spending hawk.
And his son even more so.
Umm – don’t you mean a spending-cut hawk?
Kathy,
Yes.
I don’t usually agonize over words as much in my comments as I do in a post.
Some of us have been reading claims that conservatives are brain-dead and figured that we would be next after Ms. Schindler Schiavo.
Actually, the politicians got something right for once. They passed a special-purpose bill instead of passing a poorly thought-out general-purpose bill in the heat of the moment. (This is almost as strange as a wild bear using a flush toilet.) General-purpose bills are apt to have unintended consequences. A bill intended to preserve somebody’s right to life against hostile relatives might cause the Feds to intervene in a family quarrel in which a spoiled adolescent threatens suicide. A bill intended to ensure that the handicapped receive adequate care might cause the Bureau of Fashionable Ninnies to second guess doctors. (Conservatives who think such a bureaucracy won’t be captured by the Left are fooling themselves.)
In other words, things could have been worse.
As for whether such special purpose bills might strengthen government, the most useful question to ask when considering a proposed government activity is: Would I trust my worst enemy with the power?
In the case of Terri Schindler Schiavo, the question becomes: Would I trust my worst enemy with the ability to interfere in legal decisions one at a time in a very awkward manner with every step exposed to public scrutiny? I think we could live with that.
Besides, if the Federal Government is getting too intrusive, wasn’t it a good thing that Congress was distracted by the Terri Schindler Schiavo debates?
The more time they spent on that, the less time they had to regulate steroids, micromanage education, or turn the electronics industry into an appendage of Hollywood.
Joseph,
I don’t think the Federal government under the Constitution had the power to do what they attempted.
In any case I was illustrating how the Congress dominated by Social Conservatives were spending fools.
i.e. Social Conservatives are not reliable fiscal conservatives.