fiscal conservatives

Despite serious problems with the position, there remain people for whom it is true Evangelicals and other “Christians” cost the GOP the election in 2008.  The question must be asked why, when no data supports such an opinion, do people continue to hold it?  To be sure, some dislike that Christians believe in Creation and not Evolution and that homosexuality should be sinful and not celebrated.  But where is the political division in such views? 

If Christians hurt the GOP this cycle, then in prior elections: A) the GOP was primarily a haven for FisCons who are now being driven out by SoCons and their issues; B) key issues were more secular than religious or values based, and ; C) revulsion for Christians arose, basically overnight and with no warning, driving FisCon swing voters out of the GOP.  Let’s consider these points.

A - Fiscal Conservatism is, indeed, a draw to the GOP due to fiscally conservative planks in its platform.  Some FisCons are socially Moderate or Liberal and, thus, disagree with Socially Conservative FisCons.  This duality has existed for years.  If Fiscally Conservative yet Socially Moderate or Liberal voters abandoned the GOP in 2008, they did so because the GOP abandoned Conservative fiscal ideology as evidenced by budget items like Medicare and Bailout spending, not because a longstanding “live and let live” agreement with SoCons suddenly flared into a civil war.

B - Consider the terms “Values Voters”, “Moral Majority” and “Religious Right”.  They support the view of a strong contribution from Christians to the political process, past and present.  One can still debate the matter, of course, but however the question of SoCon political significance is answered, it refutes the premise Christians harmed the GOP in 2008.  If they were not influential from 1980 through 2004, where did they gain the power to derail the GOP in just 4 years?  If momentum is now in their direction, why alienate them?  Wouldn’t prudence dictate courting them?  If they were influential in 2004 and before, then “A” above applies and the origin of any rift is elsewhere.  Either way SoCons didn’t drive FisCons out of the party in contempt for ignorant, religious cousins.

C - Is there then a Republican rift so serious it may have cost the GOP the election?  There is, but not in the way it is being spun.  It does not exist between Conservative Republicans and Christians.  For the most part they share fiscal and social positions.  The rift is between Liberal Republicans and Conservative Republicans, including Christians.  It is Liberal GOPers proclaiming Christians as the culprit.  The strategy is to use religion within the GOP to divide secular Conservatives and religious Conservatives leaving secular Liberals to divide and conquer all Conservatives.

Secular Liberals hope to change the basis for coalition from fiscal issues to social issues.  They prefer the cornerstone be Social Liberalism with a welcome to Fiscal Conservatives than Fiscal Conservatism and a welcome to Social Moderates and Liberals.  That they do so using religion as the wedge is a classic implementation of the pragmatic philosophy emodied in the adage, “My brother and I against my cousin.  My cousin and I against my enemy!”  Secular Conservatives should be wary of this olive branch and wonder when Secular Liberals will come for them with no one left to object.

The question I’ve pondered is, “Why this wedge and why now?”  I found my answer in the biblical description of God as “the Lord God Almighty, Who was, and is, and is to come.”  Those pushing Christians out of the Party are comfortable with the God Who “was”.  That God is a fairy tale good for morality plays but with no claim on current morality.  Likewise, the God Who “is to come” is a fairy tale valuable as a threat.  Gone for years and not expected back today, He can be used to club the faithful and to strip their allies from them.

What is problematic, however, is the God “Who is”.  If Christianity exists in a positive light, people will ask about the God “Who is”.  They’ll find the backstory of the God “Who was”.  They’ll find the happy ending of the God “Who is to come!”  The authority of the God “Who is” threatens Liberals, GOP Liberals included.  Rejecting God’s authority, the only remaining authority to acknowledge is their own.  This must be protected from all usurpers, real and perceived.  If that means religious people get thrown under a political bus, it’s a small price to pay.

This Christmas season, we’ve heard talk about Christ - His birth, life and death.  Most of it has been positive.  But never forget Caiphas said, of this same Christ, “You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” Pharaoh and Herod also believed destroying God’s Deliverer was the path to political power, security and longevity.  History records the legacies of these men and their schemes.  Secular Liberals, injecting that same ant-Christian vein into today’s “politics that is”, won’t fare any better.  In fact, biblical accounts of this behavior in the “politics that was” should serve as a warning for modern practitioners.  The “politics which is to come” don’t always turn out as you expect if you remove the God Who is.

Without doubt, there are other factors at work, as well.  But to those ridiculing Christians for believing God speaks to them in their hearts; to those who can’t understand how that could happen - try reading the headlines with what the Book calls “an ear to hear”.  You never know what you might hear if you are listening for it.

<a href="conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse">Blue Collar Muse</a>

Eric Kohn writes:

Right now, if the Democrats proposed a bill to burn down the Capitol, the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, the Republicans would compromise and agree to phase it in over 5 years. Is there any doubt this would have been the paradigm under John McCain? 

If Republicans ever hope to win back the libertarian bloc and reengage activism among fiscal conservatives, they need to take a look at some some potential leaders and possible presidential candidates they've been ignoring for the most part.

At this moment, Mike Huckabee is suggesting the purging of believers in small government from the party, calling libertarianism "a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism."

If some in the party get their way, Huckabee won't have to worry about internal competition from what he calls the  “real threat” to the Republican Party: “libertarianism masked as conservatism.”

Then there is Georgia's Saxby Chambliss, who is in the midst of a major fight to retain his Senate seat.  Things might have gone fairly well for Saxby if he hadn't voted for the bailout, opening the door for his opponent to be able to make this statement:

It's classic Saxby Economics - $700 billion for Wall Street, while Georgia families get stuck with the bill. That's just wrong.

While Saxby was busy justifying his bailout vote to unsympathetic Georgia voters, Libertarian Allen Buckley was placing signs around the state billing himself as the only fiscal conservative in the race.  If the DSCC hadn't made the mistake of going after Saxby on the Fair Tax in the heart of Neal Boortz territory, it's possible that Martin (who distanced himself from the ads) might have won.  As it turned out, the Libertarian forced a runoff which now has significant national implications.

Now comes the really laughable part.  Up until Election Day, media and local conversation (I was working in Atlanta until a week after the general election) about the race was centered around fiscal issues -- and primarily about the bailout.  So who does Saxby bring into the state to help him campaign? "Tax Hike Mike" Huckabee and bailout enthusiast John McCain.

It's not just the people, either. One also needs to look at the organizations closely affiliated with the GOP.  As one example, the NRA just joined in the flap over the Obama transition team asking potential appointees about their gun ownership and registration habits.  This is the same NRA who turned their back on one of their own board members to endorse someone with an abysmal Second Amendment record and an adversarial relationship to the NRA. How are people to trust an organization like this when they just chose politics over principle with respect to McCain?

If the GOP ever hopes to regain the trust of conservatives and the votes of libertarians, they need to be looking at people like Mark Sanford, Jeff Flake or even Gary Johnson -- as opposed to Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Saxby Chambliss.

Everyone should know more about stuff like Yahoo Pipes. I use it to get my content out in new and innovative ways^TM and also to get content out of static sites into an easily digested RSS format. Craig has been a real pioneer in showing the way. -Patrick

I’ve been thinking that if we create RSS feeds and websites that focus on specific aspects of the conservative movement, we might be able to unite and mobilize better.

For example, I’ve used Yahoo Pipes and other web services to create an RSS feed that pulls together the YouTube videos of the Cato Institute, The Club for Growth, Friends of Americans for Tax Reform, ReasonTV and the Tax Foundation. I’m hoping that supporters of one organization may find the messages of the others interesting – uniting the fiscally conservative community on the web a bit further.

I also used the feed to create a self-updating webpage which I’ve embedded in a offensively basic, crude, caveman-esque framed webpage I called the Limited Government Network

Mike Huckabee gave a recent interview to the Huffington Post where he outlined his vision for the Republican Party:

What can the party do to reverse course?

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff." But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before.

Just because fiscal conservatives and most libertarians oppose big government doesn't mean they want to throw people on the streets, have anarchy in the streets, and eliminate schools. Most fiscal conservatives/libertarians believe maintaining law and order is one of the very few things government should be doing. Most fiscal conservatives/libertarians believe private charity and the private sector are the most efficent means to deliver services like healthcare and education because government bureaucracies are inefficent, consume much of the resources that can be used to help the receipents, require burdensome taxation, and often do not have the best interests of the receipents at heart. Most conservatives/libertarians believe that there should be a safety net for those among us who truly cannot work or are old.

Finally, have the failures of 2006 demonstrated to Huckabee the need to include conservatives/libertarians in the GOP fold. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians stayed home or defected to the Democrats over excessive spending, government waste, and intrusive government in 2006 and Huckabee wants to continue this. More "compassionate conservatism" will not win elections for Republicans. Only a platform embodying the principles of limited government, Federalism, a strong national defense, and defending traditional values will put us back into power.

Taking Huckabee's advice would destroy the conservative movement.