Social Conservatism and Limited Government: Partners or Competitors?
The media and liberal (er, progressive) interest groups are always looking for ways to break apart and shut down the conservative movement, from flat-out lies to “misstatements” and bending the truth. Those of us who proudly wear the title “Conservative” are accustomed to their trickery, but the general population is not. If we expect to win elections, we must be able to answer every question.
Last semester, in one of our final College Republicans meetings of the semester, we invited a very liberal politics professor to speak to us, him being the very definition of a “liberal special interest”. We knew we wouldn’t agree on anything, and he knew he wasn’t going to convince us of anything, so while there were some heated moments, it was fairly congenial. However, he did raise one point that really caused me to think, not to subscribe to the liberal condition, but to re-examine how we as Conservatives and Republicans, operate.
In the midst of his skulduggery, and as part of his no-questions-welcome monologue, he used the old leftist argument (I’m paraphrasing), “Well, how can Republicans claim to be limited government folks when they support big government ideas? You can’t be limited government if you’re for government intervention into people’s private lives, such as with gay marriage and abortion!”
How do we, as conservative Republicans, address this argument? As an “all of the above” conservative (fiscal, social, and national security), I feel a bit torn when I hear this brought up. I’m all for allowing people to run their own lives, in fact, I believe it’s their responsibility, and I believe in limited government, so how do I respond?
First of all, I believe it’s important to point out to voters (not liberal “skulduggers”, they won’t listen anyway) that Conservatives and thereby, Republicans, are not the anti-government party. We believe in limits and in rules, but only as many as are necessary. We trust people are mature enough to do the right thing. That’s one reason I believe a proper democratic system of government can only survive in a nation of Christians.
I believe the perfect way to sum up the conservative movement to prospective voters is the old “My freedom stops where my fist punches your nose” adage, or the idea that a citizen is free to do as he or she wishes until they infringe on someone else’s freedom. No one individual is worth more than any other. The flip side of that is that rules exist, and even though you’re no less of a person, if you break the law, you must face the consequences, no matter who you are.
As limited government conservatives, we believe in having a government as small as possible and one whose power is limited by the people it governs. According to the US Constitution, government exists to “insure domestic tranquility” among other things. In other words, government’s place is to guarantee the rule of law is upheld and that wrongdoers are properly and justly punished.
That being said, this is where morality comes into play in government. As a Christian nation, God and His Word, the Bible, provided our moral compass, our ideas for what was right and wrong, legal and illegal. Now, however, with the onslaught of moral relativism, we have no compass. Liberal judges are happy to legislate their own flavor of morality, and their tastes change with the days of the week. We need a standard to back up our laws.
It’s important to point out that so-called “big government” social conservatives are not pushing to increase government; they’re working to undo the harm done to our society by these moral relativists. This is why social conservatism ≠ Big Government. Social Conservatives are fighting for the ever-elusive “traditional values” (Biblical truths) and are working to restore government to its size of old. It’s social liberals who are trying and succeeding in growing the federal government to allow and protect such things as gay marriage and abortion.
This is why our coalition must reconvene and be strengthened. Liberals haven’t changed their tricks or tactics, we’ve just stopped fighting their advances. They accuse us of being the party of anarchy, but they legislate it, providing protection and non-discrimination clauses to benefit those who have broken laws or assist those with ethical faults.
Folks, it’s okay to say something is wrong. There’s truth in that statement, but until we grow up and get past our fear of having our feelings hurt, none of this matters; we’ll always be the minority party, if we survive at all. But before you give up, remember this, if we don’t defend what is true and right in our nation, who will?
The answer to that professor’s question is this: “You, sir, are the one who has grown government, and we will always fight to stop you.”
Social conservatism is a limited government principle, but unless we take ownership of our own ideals, liberals will always redefine them to suit themselves.
—————
As always, I’m eagerly await your comments. Have something more to add to the discussion? Am I way out of line somewhere? Or do you completely agree? Let me know! Leave a comment in the section below.
Forget “conservatism,” please. It has, operationally, de facto, been Godless and thus irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
”[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com