Here we have Mike Huckabee putting forward the social conservative versus libertarian divide:
Former Arkansas governor and presidential primary contender Mike Huckabee recently attacked Republicans for focusing too exclusively on libertarians and what they stand for—limited government, lower taxes, and increased personal liberty. He states in his new book, Do the Right Thing:
"The real threat to the Republican Party is something we saw a lot of this past election cycle: libertarianism masked as conservatism. And it threatens to not only split the Republican Party, but render it as irrelevant as the Whig Party."
The way he sees it, social issues must be solved first, then the country can move on to government-size and fiscal issues.
How about solving both issues at the same time? A while back a caller into the Rush Limbaugh program said that in order for a cause to take hold, their needs to be leaders who establish the philosophy of a cause. In a previous post, I said conservatives should pay careful attention to what Jonah Goldberg said on page 181 of his book, "Liberal Fascism":
Progressivism came to be renamed "liberalism". In the past, liberalism had referred to political and economic liberty as understood by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith. For them, the ultimate desideratum was maximum individual freedom under the benign protection of a minimalist state. The progressives, led by Dewey, subtly changed the meaning of this term, importing Prussian vision of liberalism as the alleviation of material and educational poverty, and liberation from old dogmas and old faiths. For progressives liberty no longer meant freedom from tyranny, but freedom from want, freedom to be a "constructive" citizen, the Rousseauian and Hegelian "freedom" of living in accord with the state and the general will. Classical liberals were now routinely called conservatives, while devotees of social control were dubbed liberals. This in 1935 John Dewey would write in Liberalism and Social Action that activist government in the name of economically disadvantaged and social reconstruction had "virtually come to define the meaning of liberal faith."
Given this worldview, it shouldn’t be surprising that so many liberals believed the Soviet Union was the freest place on earth. In a series of articles on the Soviet Union for the New Republic, Dewey hailed the grand "experiment" as the "liberation of a people to consciousness of themselves as a determining power in the shaping of their ultimate fate."
There are two points that need to be taken from that. First, conservatives need to understand that they are "classical liberals". We are suppose to adhere to the principles of freedom this country was founded on. Second, those principles are the polar opposite of the agenda that has been adopted by the public education system thanks to the work of John Dewey. That resulted in a movement that increased the role of government beyond the limited scope that founding fathers intended, and it also but man above God as noted in the Dewey quote;
"liberation of a people to consciousness of themselves as a determining power in the shaping of their ultimate fate."
To fix the libertarian problem of big government and the social conservative problem of immorality (caused by putting man above God), the common solution is education reform. Huckebee is wrong to say that the libertarians and the social conservatives are political enemies. And can Huckabee understand the importance of education reform for conservatives with his connection to the NEA?
Thanks to the indoctrination of public education, and the propaganda feed by the MSM, we have ideological confusion among conservatives, as explained by Star Parker:
According to the just published report, more Americans today call themselves conservative than liberal, and the relative percentages in each category has hardly changed since George W. Bush was elected to his first term in 2000.
Thirty eight percent of Americans self-identify as conservative, 21 percent as liberal, and 36 percent as moderate. This compares to 36 percent, 18 percent and 38 percent, respectively, in 2000.
But taking a closer look at what this means leaves you scratching your head. You have to wonder what it means today to think of yourself as conservative.
When asked if the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent, only 38 percent of those who said they are "conservative" said yes. And 50 percent of "conservatives" said they favor government guaranteeing health care "even if it means raising taxes."
Although 71 percent of "conservatives" said they oppose gay marriage, only slightly more than half, 52 percent, said that abortion should be illegal.
Star Parker then explains that fiscal conservative libertarians and social conservatism goes hand in hand:
Some argue that the party should lighten up on the social agenda. The party is all white, they say, and there is no future without Latinos and blacks.
But consider the obvious. First, conservatives define the Republican Party. According to this study, 68 percent of Republicans call themselves conservative.
Second, it should be obvious from the above, that if conservatives are rooted anywhere, it's more in the social agenda than in the fiscal and limited government agenda. Where in the world would the party be if the leadership tried to uproot from social conservatism?
Third, consider what is going on with blacks and Latinos.
In this same Pew survey, 25 percent of all Democrats called themselves conservatives. But among these same Democrats, 35 percent of blacks call themselves conservative compared to 21 percent of whites.
Why? Blacks are social conservatives. Blacks understand the havoc that moral relativism has caused in their communities. And, this is also the case with Latinos.
As was widely reported, blacks and Latinos voted for Proposition 8 in California, supporting traditional marriage, despite the majority of them also voting for President-elect Barack Obama.
So where is the logic in Republicans abandoning social conservatism in order to reach blacks and Latinos?
It appears that the message getting lost is the importance of limited government and fiscal conservatism.
Health care is almost 20 percent of our national economy. Too many are not getting what it will mean when bureaucrats will define what health care is and when the IRS comes knocking to check on the policy you bought. Too many seem to have forgotten that prosperity is created by individual freedom and creativity and not government programs.
These are tough times and families are under duress. Perhaps it's tempting to think that opening the door to more government is a good idea. Particularly in an environment where every day another half trillion-dollar check is being cut in Washington for bailout programs.
When most Americans say they are conservative, they mean it. Too many, however, are forgetting that this means limited government as well as traditional values. We need new, energetic Republican leaders to get this message across.
The need for new Republican leaders is also true in South Dakota. Currently the leadership of the SD GOP is blaming social conservatives for splitting the party with the abortion fight, and blaming the libertarian-minded reforms that are to reduce the size and scope of government for making the GOP look like crooks. Oddly, it seems that these two movements embody most of the GOP platform. Perhaps the mistake is the thinking of that Huckabee brought forward...that fiscal conservatives and social conservatives cannot work together. And I say they can and they should and they need to. And the issue to unite the two grass roots movements is education reform.
Comments