Yeah, I know, I was shocked he was still in it, too, but, despite going a wee bit overboard, he makes some sense. I found this first over at the Iowa Independent, but, I’m going to use the blog posting at his 2012 presidential website.
In a speech Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson criticized the “social conservative fringe†of the Republican Party, saying “There is no majority in America that can be built on hypocrisy and inconsistency.â€
Johnson said, “Social issues are not going to win the White House in 2012. When I see Republican Presidential candidates discussing morality as if the government were some type of watchdog and moral compass for America —then I see the American electorate being turned away. America does not want its government dictating behavior the bedroom, we do not want a government invading personal lives. The Republican Party is about efficient management of the government pocket book. We are the party that can restore economic prosperity to this county. However, if continue to get sidetracked by the social conservative fringe of the party—we will never get that chance.â€
He goes on in that vein for a long time, and, while a bit over the top, especially with that “social conservative fringe” crack, which a. won’t help his bid, and b. demeans those who do care about those issues (PS: I really do not consider Social Conservatives to be true conservatives), he makes some sense. Too often, Republicans push social issues at the Federal level. I was heavily against the Defense of Marriage Act, because things like that do not belong at the federal level. If a State wants to do, that’s fine, but, still, American Conservatism, based on Classical Liberalism, should mean that our side butts out of private lives as much as possible. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m not a big proponent of the gay lifestyle, but, doesn’t affect my life, and, this being America, if it isn’t harming me, why should I care? It’s none of my damned business. Plus, I know folks who are gay, both male and female. They’re humans, and downright good people. I’m not going to judge them on being gay. Though, guys kissing kinda grosses me out. Sorry!
Obviously, we do need to get involved in some social issues, in just that we need to stop some of the Liberal agenda. And there is nothing wrong with saying what you believe. I have no problem with, say, a Rick Perry being heavily religious and possibly being a Creationist. Same way I have no problem with someone being an Atheist. But, I do not want either pushing their beliefs on me, especially through legislation. This is one of the reasons I like Michele Bachmann: she is a good fiscal conservative (not perfect, but, are any of us?). She also has many social conservative leanings, but, she doesn’t attempt to push most on people, especially though legislative means.
And this election needs to be about fiscal matters. Do I care that Mitt Romney is probably still a believer in the anthropogenic global warming hoax? Not as long as he makes no attempt to foist those beliefs on me and the American public by force of law. And folks like Perry and Bachmann, who say they are not True Believers (Perry is reformed, like myself), really need to couch that belief in economic terms, such as how so many of these man-made global warming policies would be seriously damaging to the economy and to economic growth and jobs.
They need to stay on topic, and avoid getting into social issues, and stick to the economy, foreign policy, and other similar issues.
Conservatives merely have to lead with their fiscal foot, Virginia Governor Bob MacDonald’s 09 race is an excellent example. If we do that and get the chance to turn the economy with fiscal responsibility and as importantly by eviscerating the regulatory agencies with a little patience the So-Cons could get most of what they want.
Agree Adobe. Social issues are economic ones as well. If we don’t take up the mantle of cultural defenders, and show that we have a moral base, and the liberal a-moral socialists get elected, THEIR FIRST MOVEMENTS are to push their social agenda!!!!
Gay rights, gay military, amnesty, abortion\murder on demand, free healthcare for everyone no matter what country they are from, no military defense, no defense of our friends, taxing the evil rich out of existence….
yep, those are social issues.
You can’t be a true conservative without having a solid moral social basis. Everything economic is founded upon your morality.
If you believe women should be allowed free and unfettered access to kill their babies, then you believe federal taxes should pay for it. But you also believe the man has no say in the matter.
There is social, economic, and legal all tied in one.
Teach, you bring up gay issue. Let people do what they want and let states decide. Sure. Ok. And if state decided to go back to its original roots and RE-started is state founded religion? And only marriages consumated in that church were recognized in that state? Would that be ok?
I’m just askin. There’s lots to state’s rights that people have forgotten and has been glossed over due to the rise in statism and socialism. But the rights are all still there.
and that just my saturday morning 2-cents worth.
It’s an interesting constitutional conundrum you bring up, Captain. Technically, the 1st Amendment only applies to the Federal congress. But, States must follow any constitutional law passed by Congress. But, the 1st says “Congress shall pass no law…”, so, what if a state wanted to do it on religious reasons? By the Federal constitution, they could, and Congress couldn’t stop them, because they would be infringing on religious freedoms of those people, based on the 10th.
I had an interesting conversation on this with a Duke law teacher one time, and his best answer was “thankfully, every state has a Constitution that provides a way that these types of issues will never happen.”
(PS: I really do not consider Social Conservatives to be true conservatives),
Sad that you would define what is and is not a conservative. I personally believe that social issues are NOT of prime importance in politics for a party to run on but they are a part of each person who makes up that party. Be they right or left. Democrats, Republicans or libertarians. Social issues define us and make us who we are whether you agree or disagree with our moral compass.
You rarely say anything at this blog that I take exception with but this was something that I found blinking like a neon sign. That doesnt mean I will stop reading you blog or stop commenting but wow I was sure surprised at this.
I would have been better served to expand on that in terms of following the American conservative model, Word. American conservatism is based on classical liberalism which has at its core that government should stay out of people’s lives as much as possible, what is called the Moral Core. With classical conservatism government is heavily involved in the moral core, much like they practice in Europe.
There’s nothing wrong with moral positions, but I have a hard time with politicians pushing their morality on me. I don’t like it when any politician does it.
That’s the short answer, since I’m doing this on my Droid.
The charge that social conservative are not true conservatives is overly broad. Socially conservative big government Republicans for example are not true conservative.
The point of my comment above was that by emphasising fiscal conservatism those who feel strongly about socially conservative issues will make more progress in the end. By leading with the So-Con foot, conservatives lose the ears of many independents. By getting the chance to prove fiscally conservative principles create a better economic life for everybody they also get to show that they are not crazy.
There are many who refuse to listen to anything any conservative says on any topic if they are pro-life. The fact of the matter is that the ability to limit access to abortion is largely limited stopping the government from financing it. Pro-choice voters appose pro-life candidates because of their stance on that one issue despite the limits to their ability to actually ban abortion.
Excellent points, Adobe.
I’ve got a long response in my head regarding that and as to what captain wrote, too much for Droid typing. I’ll try and do it when I get home.
You sure there’s room in that head Teach?!?! har! Since today’s smart phones make us more stupidier and leed to decreasediing brain poweres.
Ok. In general, during a time like now, a time of GREAT economic distress, conservatives and Republicans in general should push more loudly the idea of fiscal constraints. Make their economic policy firstmost.
However, they should not be afraid to state what their morality is. It tells us conservatives what the politicians morality and soul is coming from.
A politician can say and do things like Ron Paul with regard to economic policies. But, if that person has no moral basis, IMHO, I would find it hard to believe that they will hold to that opinion once they become a member of the zombie-empire in DC. If he is a believer in life, a believer in family, a believer in defending Christian faith and expressing that faith, then to me, he is also a true defender of the American dream which includes the economics.
just my extra 2 cents. And 4-cents is all I can afford to give right now.
Actually Ron Paul is an excellent example of part of my point.
His ideas on foreign policy are naive except when they are dangerous, seeing nothing wrong with Iran getting the bomb for instance. Based on those views I could never support him for president. Based on his fiscal and monetary policies I’d have no hesitation voting for him as a house rep, because the damage done by his foreign policy positions would be limited.
Conservatives needn’t forsake their social views but they would be advised to accentuate their fiscal pro-growth views.
When the guy covered in dirt and sawdust walks into a dealership there is nothing wrong with the salesman emphasizing how tough his trucks are rather than how pretty.
No, they do not need to forsake their social issues, but, many of the Social Conservatives tend to push their social views on everyone else, instead of making it so people have a choice. Are there lines in the sand? You bet. Most of these issues shoudl be left to the states, though, not at the federal level, as was meant to be. Los Federales are way too involved in our lives already, and the Republicans need to fight back against these intrusions, and not add to it.
Is man-caused global warming a social issues? I suppose. But, Republicans should be fighting back against this big government push, not adding to it, such as with the original lightbulb “ban.”
What about teaching creationism in school? Does religion belong in school? Perhaps as an opposing view. But some, like Rick Perry, push it too hard. He’s trying to push his morals on others, which is wrong for American Conservatives. Just like it is wrong for liberals to push their gay agenda and such in school.
Definately, they shouldn’t be afraid to say what their morals are. It’s when they start forcing us to live those morals beyond the norms of society that we go down the roads of Classical Conservatism, ie, social conservatism.
And, if we got our fiscal house in order, then perhaps we can deal with other issues.
Well, some people think that Creationism is the reality and that the Theory of Evolution is the religion……
But, I guess we can agree that… Repubs should have a much tighter, AND LOUDER, focus on the economic problems of today. Beat back against the Socialists social (economics) issues.