They were all social conservatives, not moderates

By
Mike DeVine, Legal Editor

Rush Limbaugh commented today on the fears of many elected Republicans, especially as recently voiced by former Speaker Newt Gingrich, that the GOP could be facing a landslide defeat in November. Rush says the fears are because no one in the party, from the top down, is championing the winning strategy of the past: conservatism. Rather, the party is trying to attract indies and dems without converting them to conservatism.

I was inspired to write this by a comment from Doc Holliday at Redstate.com, who said:

I do not think conservatism at its nature starts with "social conservatism", I think it starts with economic conservatism. If you boiled this group down to the one issue they can all agree on, it is "get the gov out of economics".

I agree that the kind of conservatism most conservatives mean when they refer to same is a variation of this basic concept, also frequently reduced to small government guaranteeing private property rights.

But in pondering Doc's comment and E Pluibus Unum's more extensive definitions incorporating the three-legged stool that William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan made famous, I conclude that one must begin any talk of economic conservatism with an environment in which it can function and flourish.

The many became one as social conservatives!

That environment would be what we call civilization itself.

I realize now since I came to Redstate over three years ago, when pressed to self identify most strongly with either the fiscal-cons, security-cons or social-cons, I always land with the social-cons.

Before I go further, let me stress that I have always been a war hawk. I was a Democrat from birth to 2000, and I was a JFK democrat. I loathed the limp-wristed weakness the new castrati democrats exuded and still exude to our enemies abroad. But I was a social liberal for most of those years for the same reason everyone is, but won't admit: I wanted to eat my cake and yet, still get to keep it, i.e. responsibility free, consequenceless sex.

I lived through the late 70's failed liberal policies as a teen, majored in economics in college, and saw Reagan's Milton Friedman-Arthur Laffer conservative economic policies work in spades. We are still in the Reagan recovery.

But I think the reason, when forced, despite my strong war hawkishness and economic background, that I self identify as a social conservative is that without it, none of the others are possible for very long.

I am happy to see that John McCain understands this better than many of his apologists here at Redstate that think the answer to GOP woes is to reach out to moderates.

A moderate has one basic meaning: social liberalism, i.e. pro choice on abortion, pro-special rights based on one's declared preferred sexual activities and banning any meaningful mention of God from the public square, especially including from the public schools, unless it is a secular, supposed values-free God that teaches of Susie having two mommies.

The GOP doesn't win trying to be Democrats.

And America loses.

Can we name a civilization that thrives and prospers by killing off its young or reducing marriage to sex instead of the basic unit that makes civilization of the young possible? No.

Civilization appeared precisely when one woman seduced one man to be hers exclusively.

The capitols of abortion in Russia and China face dire straits, as do the mini-capitols in Western Europe. Yes, even China. China has a great shortage of females due to selective abortion of females. Throughout history, nations with such shortages turned to war. If they turn to war with us, we will destroy them. But more acutely, China is about to face a grave obstacle to continued economic growth. They have an aging population, especially in the educated, inductrial areas.

And Europe and Russia? They are dying off.

The United States still produces enough babies to replace itself, but barely.

Let's get back to Doc's economic argument. Freedom is the secret to our success. The founders defined freedom as keeping the fruits of one's labor, i.e. private property.

But they also saw that our freedom would only work for a moral and religious people, i.e. this people and their reverence for judeo-christian values as seen by the Frenchman Alexis de Toucheville.

Benjamin Franklin and many of the Founders loved to quote William Penn: "[men] must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."

Appeals to moderates are appeals to future rule by tyrants. The process has begun of course (see Big Government).

Yet, the dominant voice here at Redstate, despite McCain's appeal on the most basic of areas to social conservatives, i.e. originalist judges that would restore the free religious speech rights and local self government that caused social conservatives to get into politics on defense to begin with, seems to be that the GOP can only win by appealing to moderates.

Let's look back and see what we find among prior Presidents as the United States became the most powerful and blessed nation on earth.

Among them we find differing views on economics, oddly enough, but who among George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, FDR, HST, Ike, or JFK were social liberals?

None. They were all social conservatives.

We lost our way in the 60's and 70's and who was it that led the comeback of America and the GOP?

Social conservatives named Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.

Civilization itself begins and ends with moral values. Only via the self restraint of same can freedom produce the bounty that defines America. A bounty that makes us rich enough to be stronger than those that would take what we have.

John McCain is appealing to social conservatives, not moderates, at least on this issue. Good.

Now, will Redstate's powers that be and other republicans join him, or will they work at cross-purposes with watered down moderate appeals, which reminds me of my God, who said in Revelation 3:16:

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

This gamecock will not be spued out of God's mouth.

[I plan on voting for John McCain for President despite his intention to address and legitimize the hate group, La Raza. Have not determined if this action by McCain is hot or cold or if it is bound to be spued as lukewarm, so I am keeping a safe distance.]