FISCAL AND SOCIAL

"The reason for the change in perception is that with fiscal conservatism abandoned, the only distinguishing characteristic of the Republican Party is now social conservatism."
-Neil Sorens

In 1993, Hawaii passed a law banning same sex "marriage." The Hawaii Supreme Court then turned and negated the law, claiming the law was unconstitutional unless the state could show that the statute avoided abridgments of rights under the Hawaii Constitution. In response, the public at large cried in alarm - even Gay Rights groups - mocking the very idea of homosexual "marriage" and a law was passed in 1996 by congress and signed by President Clinton called the Defense of Marriage Act which in essence stated that whatever states might decide, the federal government will not recognize any such unions.

Fast forward to today, where the media at large act as if opposing same sex marriage makes you some sort of religious fanatic, a kook, and a Miss America contestant who says that states should make their own choices but she personally opposes it is insulted repeatedly and mocked by at least one of the judges (a gay man who photoshops semen on the faces of people he doesn't like. Why he was a judge at a Miss America pageant to begin with is a matter of some confusion).

The change is dramatic, and over a very brief time period. We went from outrage, mockery, and shock over the Hawaii's Supreme Court decision and a federal reaction opposing the idea to states beginning to force same sex "marriage" on the public in less than ten years.

So when Arlen Specter (D-PA) says he left the Republican Party because it became too socially conservative and changed since the Reagan era, he's not just lying, he's reflecting an idiot's version of events. Dan Reihl explains:

I think the real shift has been cultural and in media. For espousing ideas that were reasonably mainstream during the Reagan Era, one is promptly labeled a religious kook today. While the Republicans have been and remain the more socially conservative party, the Left has been effective in their demonizing of that aspect, especially every time a social conservative Republican goes astray with a hooker, or in a men's room, for instance.

He even suggests comparing, say, Jerry Falwell during Reagan's time to Rick Warren now - compare the rhetoric and the attitude toward social issues.

What was once mainstream America is now attacked openly and mocked directly by the entertainment and news media communities. Has the Republican party changed? Sure: it's abandoned all semblance of being the party of fiscal restraint that Reagan and Gingrich molded it into. It has gleefully rejected the concept of being the party of liberty and limited government. So now, what little social conservatism is actually left in the party stands out as the only real distinctive the Republican Party has to offer, as Mr Sorens points out above (quote courtesy Instapundit).

Christianity was previously respected enough to leave alone, now comedians use "f**k Christianity" as an applause line, complaining about how wierrrd those Christians are, without bothering the slightest attempt at explaining how - or using idiotic slanders and stereotypes to say so. It is a lot like a comedian standing up and saying how lazy those Mexicans are and using the picture of a siesta as proof. Its rank and ugly bigotry, but the culture has shifted so much in so short a time (namely, the Bush administration) that it's not just accepted but celebrated by many.

And the social conservatism, such as it is, left in the Republican Party will almost certainly disappear as well. The Republican leadership - desperate for power, attention, and being liked - are all too willing to abandon everything they claimed to stand for. It is true that social conservatism leads to fiscal conservatism, as I'll explain in a bit, but if you abandon the latter for political gain and popularity, you've already demonstrated a lack of integrity and ethics, which will likely lead to an abandonment of the former.

Ethics and virtue demand action: the practical comes from the theoretical (you have to have something to practice in order to be practical). In this case the very principles and ethics that prompt social conservatism are what defines the reason behind fiscal conservatism. The ideas of small government and lowering government spending are not in a vacuum they have a philosophical worldview behind them that inevitably prompts this position.

The ideas of social conservatism come not from some zealot's idea of eliminating fun, but from an unshakable knowledge that liberty can only come about in an ethical society. That democracy cannot function without a virtuous people. That unless the public is basically good - not just nice, but ethically proper and virtuous - then they will make choices reflecting their lack thereof.

Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die

Let me explain. If you have, say, a people who reject personal responsibility, reject the concepts of sacrifice, hard work, and achievement, if you have a people who do not believe that gaining something comes properly at a price of labor and proper effort, then you have a people who will abandon fiscal responsibility. If you have a people who believe that the here and now are all there are, that personal comfort, enjoyment, and pleasure are the highest goals and ends of mankind, then the inevitable result is irresponsibility in fiscal areas.

If all that exists is what you can touch and measure, if there is no future beyond this life, then this life is best spent finding what comfort and happiness you can, even if (and sometimes particularly if) that means a rejection of what was traditionally considered right and good. Ethics get in the way of accomplishing this goal. Virtue slows down and impedes my gaining pleasure.

Such a people would turn to others to provide what they desire, because hard work and taking responsibility is not fun, is not comfortable, and does not immediately gain pleasure. Why should I work, that takes away from me time. Why should I worry about tomorrow, I'll probably be dead then anyway. You work if you want to, wierdo, pay your taxes and I'll benefit from them. Big government can give me what I need: everyone should pay into this or they are selfish and evil. If you won't give me what I want, you are the bad guy. And when this happens, everyone inevitably loses their liberty.

A rejection of this comes from integrity, from personal responsibility, and from a basic virtue that defies personal gain and pleasure for a higher goal. With this comes a whole array of basic conservative values: family, law, decency, protection of children, and so on. The principles of liberty demand that we all sacrifice a little to gain much. We cannot simply think of ourselves, we must think of our neighbor. We cannot do simply that which brings us pleasure, we have a responsibility to someone other than ourselves. Abandoning that principle abandons liberty and brings anarchy and inevitably tyranny - for our own good.

The ideals which define social conservatism are what underpins and defines fiscal conservatism. We must have a smaller government which taxes and spends less or we lose liberty. The only way for this to work is to have a people who will, without the force of the gun or tyrants commanding us, do what is right. You have two choices in this world: do what is right because you have a reason inside you... or do what is right because you are forced to by someone outside. Of those two choices, the liberty is in the first. When you abandon that liberty, then you embrace tyranny and call for the government to save you and force others to be good.

Fiscal conservatism necessarily comes from social conservatism. Abandon one and you lose the other. And Arlen Specter has made it quite clear he wants nothing to do with either. What can stop the loss of social conservatism in America? An act of God, either as a shift when people get sick of the excesses of the left, or a catastrophic event which requires hard work, a recognition of personal responsibility, and an abandonment of frivolity to rebuild from, or perhaps even a tyranny that freedom is won from. But Social Conservatism is the only possible way to save liberty and the American dream. The only way.

Whatever change may take place, I pray it is soon and as peaceful as possible. Because the road we're on, we've seen many times before in history and it always ends in misery and blood.

*UPDATE: Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican Party recently said ""Is this the same Republican Party, the same rightward-tilting Republican Party that saved his hide in 2004? To whom he went running and pleading for support because he couldn't make it through a Republican primary?"

Meanwhile, analysts note that the GOP has not moved to the right at all:

"I don't think there's evidence that the Republican Party has shifted heavily to the right," said GOP analyst Michael Barone.

GOP pollster Whit Ayers said, "It's hard to identify a lot of issues on which the GOP of today is actually more conservative than it was in 2000, 2002 or 2004, when it won national elections."

And while economic issues dominate today's political debates, some Republicans don't even see a rightward shift on social issues.

"I don't really see any evidence that Republicans are for example coming forward and emphasizing conservative positions on cultural issues," Barone said.