Bill Quick’s announcement

The Daily Pundit is a great blog, and Bill Quick is an asset to the Right. But, Bill has become disillusioned with the Social Conservatives. I understand his frustration, I have been rubbed the wrong way by many of them myself. His issue with them seems to be my issue with them. Too often they wish to talk of small government, until something offends them on TV, and then they turn into Statist starter kits.

Frankly, I disagree with Bill on one thing. I do not think most Conservatives are wired that way, even Social Conservatives, but, the Rick Santorum’s of the GOP are a problem. Sorry but what people do in their bedrooms is their business, no matter how disgusting you or I might find it. We are a Christian nation, with a secular government, which is how it ought to be. Too often Social Conservatives blur that distinction.

And of course some Libertarians go too far as well. What I long to see is for Libertarians and Conservatives to come together on some core principles. Small government, strong support for Constitutional rule, low taxes, low regulation, and less government in our personal lives. We cannot let an issue like Gay marriage split us apart. I can see both sides of that argument. It is to me a state by state decision, but something must be done to protect states, and churches, and businesses than recognize traditional marriage from the zealots who wish to use this issue to radically change America through lawsuits and thuggish intimidation.

Sadly, the Gay activists are not looking for equality. They are looking to use the issue to attack people of faith. For me it is like this. I do not care if you marry your Gay lover. I do care if you try to force churches and businesses into accepting your lifestyle. To me, liberty is the most important thing, nothing matters more. And yes, that includes our liberty to discriminate if we choose.

Bill says he might quit visiting certain blogs. I really hope that does not include this one.

 

Face it there are some things the government just has no business legislating

No doubt that Conservatives will agree with that headline, and why wouldn’t they? I mean Conservatism’s main message is the smaller the government the better. But, as with any rule, there are the exceptions, and some “Social” Conservatives are all for the government sticking its nose out of their business, until, of course, they are offended by something, and then, well they cannot wait for the FCC or some other agency to save them from some offense. Rob Port at Say Anything links to Roger Simon’s piece that I think hits the right tone

Roger Simon writes that those who truly value limited government should stop seeking government solutions to social problems.

It’s interesting how some of those who most vociferously object to government interference in our economic affairs are most desirous of government interference in our personal ones.

I’m referring of course to social conservatives, who want to legislate our morals and values according to their views. …

The social issues, whatever your position, are best dealt with outside the governmental realm.

I realize this is an unattainable goal and that government will always intrude in our private lives to some degree, but we must fight against it as much as possible for several reasons.

To begin with, social conservatives will be vastly more successful at having their views accepted if they make their case extrinsic of government.

To clarify here, I do not think most Social conservatives want the government to get involved, but certainly many do, and they are not doing anyone any favors by abandoning their Conservative brains. Rob Port sums it up nicely

Conservatives would do better to embrace the idea that individuals are allowed to make decisions, even if the decisions made are ones we necessarily like.

Exactly! Freedom does mean that some will make decisions we dislike, or that offend us, that is part of a free society. And things like using taxes to punish, or reward certain behaviors is something a government ought never do. Likewise, every “Blue Law” ought to be repealed, as should sodomy laws, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is their business not yours, or mine, and certainly none of government’s business. And remember this, some of the biggest nanny state type laws come from city councils and county commissions, or from state legislatures. 

Team Obama: Mitt is so extremely extreme that his extremities might fly off in an extreme fashion or something

Smitty has the story

I suppose the point here is to terrify the ‘hen-house’ with the notion that Mitt is some big, bad wolf. Thoughts:

  • Are women, in general, the kind of dupes implied by this ad, who can easily be driven about the chicken coop with plays to fear? Not the likes of the ladies who link this blog, that’s for sure.
  • How is, exactly, anything on the social conservative agenda even a little bit extreme, in relation to Shari’a Law?
  • This ad risks making Romney more appealing to SoCons than it does stir up trepidation among Independents.
  • What kind of loser is #OccupyResoluteDesk that, instead of making a positive case for the swell job he’s done the last 3 years, he has to focus on demonizing the opposition? I’m guessing the three dimensional sort:

Your must-read blog post of the day

From Daniel Greenfield, who writes eloquently about the two, yes, two Republican parties

There are two Republican parties. One is fairly liberal, it is hostile to the left but it also believes in stealing their thunder by adopting moderate versions of their policies

This Republican Party is strongly pro-business, but it believes that to succeed in a global economy the government must provide subsidies to businesses and individuals. It believes that immigration reform is needed, though its chosen candidates know to avoid using the word amnesty. It believes that national health care is inevitable and that the only way to avoid a government solution is through the individual mandate.

Fascinating read, the divide in our party is real, and, if it is pushed too far, well, that would lock the Democrats in as a perpetual majority party. So, there has to be some fence mending I suppose. But, I also believe firmly that many Conservatives agree with both of these GOP’s in some areas. I see faults in both, although, the Establishment Wing, if you want to label it, is certainly not as appealing to me as what I call the Conservative Wing, which Greenfield touches on as well

Then there’s the other Republican Party. This party is deeply worried about the future of the country, and not just as a place to do business. It is socially conservative, strong on national defense because it believes that we do face real threats and enemies, it is opposed to amnesty and very skeptical of Federal power.

This party is more new than it is old, it’s a party that evolved in response to the transformation of the Democratic Party at the hands of the left. It is the base from which the Republican Party draws much of its support, particularly away from the Northeast, and it is struggling to force the party to match its deeds to its words.

It does not believe that most of the national debates are a tempest in a teacup that can be settled amicably behind closed doors. It is uninterested in bipartisan great compromisers, it seeks fighters who will stand up for its agenda. It is not interested in the progressive voyage to the national future that has been taken up by both parties, what it would like is independence from their reign of policy terror. It would like to roll back the progressive policymaking of both parties.

It is concerned for its ability to earn a living, for the values of its children and the basic freedoms that it can see being lost every day. It remembers a time when people had more freedom and less rules hanging over their heads. The tide of paperwork, the omnipresent regulatory state infuriate it and lead it to vote for people who claim to want Washington off their backs. But next year there are even more regulations and paperwork to deal with.

My main disagreement, perhaps my only real disagreement with this wing is on social issues. Yes, I am pro-life, I believe there is no greater violation of basic human rights than abortion on demand. Gay marriage? I think that is a state by state decision, although I recognize that certain Gay activists will never be sated until they force every state to have laws they deem worthy. I am very much a “leave people the Hell alone” kind of Conservative. The less government the better frankly. Too many Social Conservatives hate big, intrusive government, until something on TV offends them, then, they want a big government entity, the FCC to rescue them from their offense. Sorry, but that is not “Conservative”, not in my view. Nor am I a fan of rewarding certain behaviors with tax breaks, as some Social Conservatives are. That is my main issue with Rick Santorum. One of my steadfast rules is that taxes have one legitimate purpose, to raise revenues. When the government at any level starts using taxes to reward, or punish the purchase certain products, or certain behaviors, our liberties are diminished.

That “other” GOP? The Establishment Wing? My main issue with them is their lack of ideological balls if you will. They are the party of Diminished Expectations. Take this election for example. Mitt Romney might well be the nominee, and, if that happens, well, as many issues as I have with Mitt, I still find him far preferable to Obama. But, there is a huge difference in supporting a less-than Conservative candidate as an option to a Marxist like Obama, and settling for that less-than-Conservative candidate right out of the gate. The Establishment Wing fears losing so much that they try NOT to lose, and that is a losing strategy. Even if that strategy pays off in an electoral victory, you have still lost by not sticking to principles. Or, perhaps I should say you have lost by not BELIEVING in your principles. Political cowardice is no more appealing than any other act of cowardice is it?

Those are my thoughts on the Great GOP Divide, what be yours?

I could not have said it any better myself

Aleister sums up my feelings about the CPAC boycott by some “Social Conservatives”

Sarah Palin recently defended GOProud’s participation in CPAC 2011. You know why? Because it’s the right thing to do.

I like you So-Cons but here’s a newsflash… Your kids don’t care if a person is gay. Neither should you.

Palin, who has five kids, must know this isn’t an important issue for most young people. In the video below she isn’t waving a rainbow flag with an elephant on it but she is standing up for the  Big Tent GOP Jim DeMint wrote about in 2009.

I’ve always thought Sarah Palin is more Libertarian than anyone is willing to give her credit for and this seems like further evidence of that.  I don’t mean any disrespect to social conservatives but you can’t deny the Libertarian spirit of the Tea Party which is largely responsible for America’s Conservative re-awakening. That toothpaste isn’t going back in the tube, folks.