Jim DeMint: “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”

[cswake]

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/09/jim-demint-you-cant-be-a-fiscal-conservative-and-not-be-a-social-conservative/

This position should not be surprising to most of us, but the comments over at HotAir were interesting:


Yeah, Jim. You can.

Don’t overestimate your “mandate”, big boy. Go ahead and TRY to ram the social con BS down America’s throats, and watch what happens to a huge majority of those independents who voted Republican last Tuesday specifically because the GOP got serious about fiscal, rather than social, issues.

Don’t care. Demint is one of the most fiscally conservative Senators we have. That’s what I care about. How you live your life is up to you.

Gah, come on Jim.

LOL

DeMint is a hoot.

But wrong.

WRONG.

Fiscal Conservatives CAN to be Social Conservatives.

Social Conservatives SHOULD be Fiscal Conservatives.

DeMint, you had better pull back the reins on that runaway nag you keep flogging.

Way to build that build that coalition Jim.

Yes you can. I met a bunch of seriously wealthy business owners last weekend and every single one of them were fiscal conservatives who don’t like the social conservatism of the Tea Party (it’s there) and Republicans.

[james1906]

Stupid Jim. You're going to want that libertarian wing vote if you run in 2012. There's going to be more formidable candidates than Haters Gonna Hate.

[nate895]

It really depends on how define "fiscal conservative" and "social conservative".

[Sentient Void]

Yeah, whenever i see people on this forum talk about how great DeMint is and how he's a friend of liberty - I throw up in my mouth a little. Just a little. Same with Bachmann.

[Sentient Void]

It really depends on how define "fiscal conservative" and "social conservative".

I would think in regards to a political sense. As in - should govt have a significant role in social issues? In fiscal issues?

For example, I'd think someone who didn't like homosexuals, against abortion, against drugs, against gambling, against prostitution, and deeply religious, support legalization of such things for everyone even though he would not engage in those activities himself.

In a political sense, this person would politically be a social liberal. However, obviously they would personally be more socially conservative.

[Zap!]

Yeah, whenever i see people on this forum talk about how great DeMint is and how he's a friend of liberty - I throw up in my mouth a little. Just a little. Same with Bachmann.

Depends what he was talking about. I think you can be pro-life and be a friend of liberty, like Ron and Rand Paul are. That would be socially conservative.

[low preference guy]

what a moron

[james1906]

what a moron

This. He's giving Greene a run for his money.

[wormyguy]

I suppose I'm a living counterexample. Indeed, I'm far more of a fiscal conservative than DeMint.

[AuH20]

I think I can understand where he's going with this, though it's highly abrasive at first glance. Fiscal conservatism is tied to personal responsibility just like the major planks of social conservatism are underpinned to, so you'd like to believe that others wouldn't travel down the same road of despair, as in the case with abortion.

[emazur]

Jim DeMint, meet Gary Johnson...

[AuH20]

Jim DeMint, meet Gary Johnson...

Gary Johnson has policy flaws like Jim DeMint. Actually, a great candidate would be a hybrid of Gary Johnson and Jim DeMint.

[Sentient Void]

Gary Johnson has policy flaws like Jim DeMint. Actually, a great candidate would be a hybrid of Gary Johnson and Jim DeMint.

No. The babies would be hideous.

[AuH20]

No. The babies would be hideous.

:D That is true.

I'll tell you though. Jim DeMint can go overboard with his Christian derived homophobia but I like some of his other positions. He can be a valuable ally. And while Gary Johnson maintained a strong fiscal record as governor of New Mexico and would be a 10th amendment defender, his naive position on illegal immigration is painfully dated. Another thing that irks me about Johnson is he seems very cavalier when discussing the long term prospects of Social Security and Medicare.

[Dreamofunity]

Fiscal Conservatives CAN to be Social Conservatives.

Social Conservatives SHOULD be Fiscal Conservatives.



This.

[emazur]

Gary Johnson has policy flaws like Jim DeMint. Actually, a great candidate would be a hybrid of Gary Johnson and Jim DeMint.

Johnson is excellent though I agree he's no perfect, but social liberal Johnson's fiscal conservative record basically destroys DeMint's argument 2 ways from Sunday.

[Sentient Void]

Johnson is excellent though I agree he's no perfect, but social liberal Johnson's fiscal conservative record basically destroys DeMint's argument 2 ways from Sunday.

Absolutely. Jim DeMint is practically about as fiscally conservative as my air conditioner is energy efficient.

He gives it a lot of lip service, but that's about it.

[Bman]

Gary Johnson has policy flaws like Jim DeMint. Actually, a great candidate would be a hybrid of Gary Johnson and Jim DeMint.

What like Ron Paul?

[HOLLYWOOD]

Absolutely. Jim DeMint is practically about as fiscally conservative as my air conditioner is energy efficient.

He gives it a lot of lip service, but that's about it.


The more Demint opens his mouth, the less and less I support him. What is it with these veteran politicians that have such a distorted views on American life.

Jim Demint needs to wipe the shit off his mouth and get down to working with Rand Paul and others in cleaning up the Mess Washington DC prostitutes have created over the past 50 years.

[BuddyRey]

Who died and left Jim DeMint in charge of defining what conservatism is?

[Imaginos]

Hey Jim, you can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a non-interventionist!
Why don't you step up and try to cut military spending, instead of giving speech on how one should act in his or her bedroom?

[emazur]

Who died and left Jim DeMint in charge of defining what conservatism is?

William F. Buckley?

[BuddyRey]

William F. Buckley?

LOL! Well-played, sir! :)

[Matt Collins]

Gary Johnson has policy flaws like Jim DeMint. Actually, a great candidate would be a hybrid of Gary Johnson and Jim DeMint.
Either one would probably get my vote, but for now, I'll stick with the Paul duo :cool:

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Why is it I'm not surprised. DeMint can take his 'Social Conservatism' and cram it where the sun don't shine.

[amy31416]

How about someone like myself, who can see both sides? I understand and respect non-imposed social conservatism as though it's a cultural thing, whether it's Mormons, Orthodox Jews/Catholics, etc. They're preserving their religious heritage and culture--good on them.

But, I also see the value in social liberalism. Not everybody can fit in a cultural mold--most people can't. And I believe that the "live and let live" motto comes from this side.

Both sides have bastardized (not quite the right word, I know) their social tendencies by attempting to force it on the population at large, through coercion via the law. It would help if the social AND liberal conservatives respected each other and left each other the hell alone, and "converted" people through example if they're so inclined--but I don't understand the inclination, to be honest.

[AlexMerced]

I actually made a video about this very specific statement he made

YouTube - Do you need to fix the family to fix the economy? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbTTGTMQApA)

[RM918]

How about someone like myself, who can see both sides? I understand and respect non-imposed social conservatism as though it's a cultural thing, whether it's Mormons, Orthodox Jews/Catholics, etc. They're preserving their religious heritage and culture--good on them.

But, I also see the value in social liberalism. Not everybody can fit in a cultural mold--most people can't. And I believe that the "live and let live" motto comes from this side.

Both sides have bastardized (not quite the right word, I know) their social tendencies by attempting to force it on the population at large, through coercion via the law. It would help if the social AND liberal conservatives respected each other and left each other the hell alone, and "converted" people through example if they're so inclined--but I don't understand the inclination, to be honest.

Oh, I'm all for non-imposed social conservatism. But that's not what these guys are talking about and we all know it. I myself am personally socially conservative, but these people want to force everyone to be via force from a government's gun. They can't seem to remove themselves from the idea that if you're in favor of something you can't possibly be against it being banned by the government.

Adultery is probably many times more damaging than a lot of the things social-cons crusade against, but why haven't they banned that?

[dean.engelhardt]

So Jim, You can't stay out of my bedroom and out of my wallet at the same time?

[Bern]

... His idea, as explained in greater detail at the VVS, is that God and government are forever jockeying for position as moral beacons in the public’s imagination. The bigger government gets, the smaller God gets, and vice versa, so if you’re eager to shrink state bureaucracy and promote self-reliance, expect people to react by looking elsewhere for moral guidance — like, say, back to traditional Judeo-Christian values. Thus are all fiscal cons also social cons, whether wittingly or not. ...

That's a lot different from saying "if you are a fiscal conservative, you have to be a social conservative" in the sense of supporting social conservative governance. I wish people would take 5 seconds to dig more than skin deep before reacting to every sound bite in the blogosphere.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Jim DeMint can shove this shit right back up his own phoney balogne ass. As for AuH20, the closed-border, protectionist, anti-immigration position is untenable, and anti-liberty. At least those anti-'open' borders fellows, show themselves for what they are, anti-private property. Nice to tell everyone who you can hire on your own property, who you can let on your own property, what wages you can hire your workers, etc.

[Sola_Fide]

I think I can understand where he's going with this, though it's highly abrasive at first glance. Fiscal conservatism is tied to personal responsibility just like the major planks of social conservatism are underpinned to, so you'd like to believe that others wouldn't travel down the same road of despair, as in the case with abortion.

This^^^

[JohnEngland]

I think people are missing DeMint's point. If one is a fiscal conservative, what better way of cutting costs and the size of government than to be a moral, decent, self-regulating person?

Social liberalism necessarily requires more government. Look at the Tea Parties - they don't need any police to monitor them, whereas all these liberal rallies tend to have big police presence.

[Sola_Fide]

I think people are missing DeMint's point. If one is a fiscal conservative, what better way of cutting costs and the size of government than to be a moral, decent, self-regulating person?

Social liberalism necessarily requires more government. Look at the Tea Parties - they don't need any police to monitor them, whereas all these liberal rallies tend to have big police presence.



Exactly^^^

The Founders knew that limited government was only possible with a virtuous and responsible people. There certainly is a correlation between personal social responsibility and limited government.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What rock have you been living under? Social Conservatism is not about personal responsibility. It is about Government imposed morality standards through the use of Police, and Federal Agents. Prohibition of Alcohol was a social conservative movement. War on Drugs is social conservatism. Making the Bible Law is social conservatism. All of these things are antithesis to personal responsibility. Using the guns of the State to prevent gay couples from having the same contractual power as heterosexuals (Power of Attorney, Next of Kin, etc.). Libertarians are for personal responsibility, not social cons.

Social Conservatism is directly opposed to liberty.

[Sola_Fide]

What rock have you been living under? Social Conservatism is not about personal responsibility. It is about Government imposed morality standards through the use of Police, and Federal Agents. Prohibition of Alcohol was a social conservative movement. War on Drugs is social conservatism. Making the Bible Law is social conservatism. All of these things are antithesis to personal responsibility. Using the guns of the State to prevent gay couples from having the same contractual power as heterosexuals (Power of Attorney, Next of Kin, etc.). Libertarians are for personal responsibility, not social cons.

Social Conservatism is directly opposed to liberty.


I don't know man. Ron Paul is a Christian who is personally very socially conservative. I don't think social conservatism or honest money has anything to do with Statism.


Sin among the people is the ripe condition for Statist slavery. You may not agree with this, but it is what the Bible clearly teaches.

[JohnEngland]

What rock have you been living under? Social Conservatism is not about personal responsibility. It is about Government imposed morality standards through the use of Police, and Federal Agents. Prohibition of Alcohol was a social conservative movement. War on Drugs is social conservatism. Making the Bible Law is social conservatism. All of these things are antithesis to personal responsibility. Using the guns of the State to prevent gay couples from having the same contractual power as heterosexuals (Power of Attorney, Next of Kin, etc.). Libertarians are for personal responsibility, not social cons.

Social Conservatism is directly opposed to liberty.

We need to differentiate between politics and culture.

I believe in a politically libertarian government, so that people are free to associate and live as they wish, but you need to have a culturally conservative society, as so to avoid the need for more government.

You can't expect to have a small government when the people do personally and socially destructive things. When people abdicate their responsibility to society and themselves, how can government spending not go up?

As they say, freedom ain't free! In other words:

Social conservatism as a cultural institution is necessary for a libertarian government to survive.

[amy31416]

I think people are missing DeMint's point. If one is a fiscal conservative, what better way of cutting costs and the size of government than to be a moral, decent, self-regulating person?

Social liberalism necessarily requires more government. Look at the Tea Parties - they don't need any police to monitor them, whereas all these liberal rallies tend to have big police presence.

The implication is that you can not be a "moral, decent, self-regulating person" without being a social conservative--and that's bullshit.

And, if I may remind you--at several of these tea parties, there HAVE been incidents where bonafide members did NOT use good judgment. The shoulder-stomper is one, the guy who yelled at and threw money at a guy in a wheelchair is another.

May I also remind you of the many, many cases where these alleged social conservatives get caught in flagrante delicto with gays, other women, stealing and taking back-room deals just as much (and sometimes more) than their social liberal counterparts?

Knowing who you are, and living your life without trying to "closet" yourself is far healthier than trying to define yourself as a social liberal/conservative any day.

[AuH20]

Jim DeMint can shove this shit right back up his own phoney balogne ass. As for AuH20, the closed-border, protectionist, anti-immigration position is untenable, and anti-liberty. At least those anti-'open' borders fellows, show themselves for what they are, anti-private property. Nice to tell everyone who you can hire on your own property, who you can let on your own property, what wages you can hire your workers, etc.

Many libertarians falsely hold this romantic notion that is completely incompatible with the maintenance of a nation-state. In our country, illegal immigration is a direct violation of private property rights and subsequently liberty, because unfortunately there are a myriad of fees and taxes tied to the exercising of our own personal sovereignty as citizens. In essence, our own private property has been publicized. For example, if there are too many students in a particular district in relation to allocated resources, one's property taxes would theoretically rise. It's simply naive to look at the borders of one's property and define this shallow autonomy as the supreme facilitator of a contract between two parties, when the consequences are vast and profound.

[JohnEngland]

The implication is that you can not be a "moral, decent, self-regulating person" without being a social conservative--and that's bullshit.

And, if I may remind you--at several of these tea parties, there HAVE been incidents where bonafide members did NOT use good judgment. The shoulder-stomper is one, the guy who yelled at and threw money at a guy in a wheelchair is another.

May I also remind you of the many, many cases where these alleged social conservatives get caught in flagrante delicto with gays, other women, stealing and taking back-room deals just as much (and sometimes more) than their social liberal counterparts?

Knowing who you are, and living your life without trying to "closet" yourself is far healthier than trying to define yourself as a social liberal/conservative any day.

Ok, I think the problem here is definitions. When DeMint talks of social conservatism, to me (and others) that simply means a person who is moral, decent, self-regulating etc.

I think to many, social conservatism has come to mean that. However, for the sake of argument, let's take the term "social conservatism" out of the debate, since its definition is clearly contentious.

The essential point is that, regardless of political labels, you need a moral, self-regulating etc people if you want to have a libertarian government.

[cswake]

This entire discussion highly depends on the definition of labels we use, such as being a social conservative or socially liberal. We seem to (unconsciously) disagree on what they mean, and so do some of the folks at HotAir:


I am a fiscal conservative, and socially liberal

SueM on November 10, 2010 at 7:38 AM

How can you be fiscally conservative yet support nation killing, uber-expensive, entitlement programs?

I agree with others that DeMint was talking about personal responsibility and individual morality. The problem is that when many of us hear "social conservatism", it translates into the use of government force to construct a society that is, in their eyes, moral. This should be a lesson that precise definitions and clarity of thought are not a waste of time.

[Travlyr]

Left/Right labels are quite effective techniques for dividing and conquering.

[JohnEngland]

This should be a lesson that precise definitions and clarity of thought are not a waste of time.

Absolutely. I would argue that most of the poltical conflicts in the world arise from a lack of shared understanding of definitions.

[Stary Hickory]

Jim DeMint can shove this shit right back up his own phoney balogne ass. As for AuH20, the closed-border, protectionist, anti-immigration position is untenable, and anti-liberty. At least those anti-'open' borders fellows, show themselves for what they are, anti-private property. Nice to tell everyone who you can hire on your own property, who you can let on your own property, what wages you can hire your workers, etc.

No frankly you can speak for yourself concerning illegal imigration. You do NOT speak for me on this matter and I will never let you or people like you dictate how I protect myself from political theft.

We get it you don't believe in borders, thats fine. If you are an anarchist be one, leave me out of it. You ignore the fact that illegal immigration is a political tool for coercion and theft. In fact it hardly seems to phaze you that people are getting bent over because of the wlefare state and a corrupt democratic system, you support bolstering this corrupt system by allowing an unlimited amount of illegal immigrants to flow into our country and "vote" themselves our lives, property, and liberty away from us.

I get very tired of people who vehemently hold a position like yours while paying only lip service to the corrupt welfare state and class warfare which is constantly being used to oppress and rob honest working people. You would enpower this system with unlimited immigration. I don't know if you are just naive or simply don't care about people freedoms and liberties because they are first thing to go when a corrupt Democratic system, mob rule, is fed unlimited immigration.

Oh and for the record it is none of your business how the people of AZ handle immigration, leave people alone.

[AuH20]

No frankly you can speak for yourself concerning illegal imigration. You do NOT speak for me on this matter and I will never let you or people like you dictate how I protect myself from political theft.

We get it you don't believe in borders, thats fine. If you are an anarchist be one, leave me out of it. You ignore the fact that illegal immigration is a political tool for coercion and theft. In fact it hardly seems to phaze you that people are getting bent over because of the wlefare state and a corrupt democratic system, you support bolstering this corrupt system by allowing an unlimited amount of illegal immigrants to flow into our country and "vote" themselves our lives, property, and liberty away from us.

I get very tired of people who vehemently hold a position like yours while paying only lip service to the corrupt welfare state and class warfare which is constantly being used to oppress and rob honest working people. You would enpower this system with unlimited immigration. I don't know if you are just naive or simply don't care about people freedoms and liberties because they are first thing to go when a corrupt Democratic system, mob rule, is fed unlimited immigration.

Oh and for the record it is none of your business how the people of AZ handle immigration, leave people alone.

I think AED's ideas on illegal immigration would be much more realistic in a freer, decentralized regime, in which private property would be truly private. But obviously it is not. Let's face the harsh truth. We collectively"rent" our property from the bandits in D.C. and state capitols all over the nation.

[Jordan]

If it takes banning gay marriage to balance the budget, I'm cool with that.

[Southron]

All he is saying is that if a nation doesn't have a strong moral foundation, then it will gravitate towards big government.

[denison]

I have to say I agree with him. In a society without government coercion and social engineering programs supported with high taxes, natual order would be dominent.

Traditional family values and patriarchy would be standard. But with the absense of government force people have the option to do what they want. So there would still be people who lived out of the bounds of social norm.

[denison]

"social liberalism" is supported through big government. you can not have a socially liberal society without massive social engineering by the government. In absense or the government, the concepts of reputation, honor and individual responsibility come into play.

[K466]

I’m basically a social conservative; but I don’t think you have to be one in order to be fiscally conservative. What gives me the right to impose my views on others?

[akforme]

All he is saying is that if a nation doesn't have a strong moral foundation, then it will gravitate towards big government.

if we run around and tell everyone how to live "morally", it's big government too.

[denison]

if we run around and tell everyone how to live "morally", it's big government too.

the government doesn't tell you how to live "morally", religion does. government steals from you and enacts arituary laws so they can steal more.

a productive libertarian society would be socially conservative for survival purposes. there's a reason why we teach manners, respect, and personal responsibilty..........because it leads to a respect for private property.

[Southron]

if we run around and tell everyone how to live "morally", it's big government too.

If you have to tell people not to lie, steal, cheat and to respect others, the battle is lost already.

Even more:

If you have to make people take care of their aging parents and relatives, then you will never end social security or "old age welfare".

If you have to force people to care for their children, you'll never end child support.

If marriage is worthless, then you will never end alimony.

If you have to force people to give to the poor, or those who are having hard times, then you'll never end food stamps and WIC.

If you have to force people to provide some sort of education for their children, then you will never end government schooling.

[txaslftist]

"social liberalism" is supported through big government. you can not have a socially liberal society without massive social engineering by the government. In absense or the government, the concepts of reputation, honor and individual responsibility come into play.

Very good point. If welfare didn't make it practical to be a single mother, marriage would be much more the norm, and societal (not governmental) pressures would be much stronger to make marriage enduring and adultery much less tolerated. Who would approve of a father abandoning his kids to starvation and want? But under prevailing conditions, who can blame a mother for getting rid of a mate who "doesn't make her happy" when the survival of her kids doesn't depend on an intact marriage and she's going to get a check anyway?

[Lucille]

Who died and left Jim DeMint in charge of defining what conservatism is?

Or defining what is Christian, for that matter.

AFAIC, there is nothing Christian about preemptive, perpetual wars and torture. The neocons have led more Christians astray since 9/11 than the devil himself.

[denison]

Very good point. If welfare didn't make it practical to be a single mother, marriage would be much more the norm, and societal (not governmental) pressures would be much stronger to make marriage enduring and adultery much less tolerated. Who would approve of a father abandoning his kids to starvation and want? But under prevailing conditions, who can blame a mother for getting rid of a mate who "doesn't make her happy" when the survival of her kids doesn't depend on an intact marriage and she's going to get a check anyway?

very good point. please contribute to my other thread about this topic. this disscusion has fissled out.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2976636#post2976636

[txaslftist]

the government doesn't tell you how to live "morally", religion does. government steals from you and enacts arituary laws so they can steal more.

a productive libertarian society would be socially conservative for survival purposes. there's a reason why we teach manners, respect, and personal responsibilty..........because it leads to a respect for private property.

I wouldn't give religion more credit than it deserves. You circumstances largely dictate your moral constraints, along with the values given to you by your parents. One of the legitimate complaints the modern day "atheist" has against organized religion is it's claim of the moral high ground when so many of its members don't practice what they preach.

The morality of the church is based on common-sense principles. Why is adultry a sin? Because it is destructive of marriage, and what destroys marriage decreases the prosperity of the family and the well-being of the kids, who then carry that damage into their society. Why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is also destructive of marriage, and creates no children. Most Christian rules exist because they are good for the society, and "God wants you to do this" stems from "God wants you to prosper and be happy". The rules are applications of this principle.

Government involvement in questions of morality distorts the cost of exercise of freedom. Why are there so many broken families at the present time? Because welfare and AFDC and other programs reduce the cost of divorce and adultry. Why is there so much premarital sex? Because abortion, birth control and reduced costs associated with early pregnancy make the consequences of premarital sex less.

[LibertyEagle]

It really depends on how define "fiscal conservative" and "social conservative".

Bingo.

[georgiaboy]

Many have clarified DeMint's thoughts well in this thread. I see them as hearkening back to the statements of the founders, which indicate that in order for freedom to flourish, individual self-governance must abound.



http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

[AuH20]

I wouldn't give religion more credit than it deserves. You circumstances largely dictate your moral constraints, along with the values given to you by your parents. One of the legitimate complaints the modern day "atheist" has against organized religion is it's claim of the moral high ground when so many of its members don't practice what they preach.

The morality of the church is based on common-sense principles. Why is adultry a sin? Because it is destructive of marriage, and what destroys marriage decreases the prosperity of the family and the well-being of the kids, who then carry that damage into their society. Why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is also destructive of marriage, and creates no children. Most Christian rules exist because they are good for the society, and "God wants you to do this" stems from "God wants you to prosper and be happy". The rules are applications of this principle.

Government involvement in questions of morality distorts the cost of exercise of freedom. Why are there so many broken families at the present time? Because welfare and AFDC and other programs reduce the cost of divorce and adultry. Why is there so much premarital sex? Because abortion, birth control and reduced costs associated with early pregnancy make the consequences of premarital sex less.

I largely agree with you. The species is wise, while the individual is foolish, as harsh as it sounds. This discrepancy in judgment is directly related to the vast amounts of experience the species has compiled from numerous encounters of trial & error. This wisdom is usually codified in religion, which is sometimes abused by the leaders of these organized religious movements.

Now regarding homosexuality, I think there are ways to protect the individual rights of these folks but at the same time keep homosexuality from grabbing an overly dominant hold of the culture not representative of their numbers.

[ChaosControl]

I'm fiscally and socially conservative in my personal life.
In politics though the two aren't lined unless you make them so. I don't want to use government to force my values on others. Such is the role of parents and the community, not the government.

[lester1/2jr]

I don't even get how you measure someones social conservatism. I go to one site that is a big water carrier for social conservatism called takimag and many of the columnists cannot fairly be called social conservative in any definition. If you go there you probably know what I'm talking about and I don't just mean Justin raimondo.

[Lucille]

I tweeted (http://twitter.com/MacGhil) this to him today (got some RTs too, and said the same at HotAir):


@JimDeMint This is more accurate: "You can't be a social con w/out being a fiscal con." You're neither if you support perpetual war, torture.

[denison]

Now regarding homosexuality, I think there are ways to protect the individual rights of these folks but at the same time keep homosexuality from grabbing an overly dominant hold of the culture not representative of their numbers.

that's worth elaborating on.

[acptulsa]

WARNING: Those libertarians are new and different and unlike what we've gotten you accustomed to, and you should run away before they begin to make sense to you!!!

Dear Sen. DeMint:

My father fought in The Big One so I could be free. My grandfather fought in The War to End All Wars so I could be free. Now, are you saying I cannot exist if I don't fit your narrow labels, or that I may not exist if I don't fit your narrow labels?

[teacherone]

who cares?

it's his opinion and by the responses here, he may be incorrect.

however, there is no need for vitriol for nowhere did he state that as a social conservative politician he must therefore tell you how to run your life.

i've got no problem with social-fiscal conservatives, as long as they let me live freely, then they can muck around the marble halls all they want.

[Feeding the Abscess]

who cares?

it's his opinion and by the responses here, he may be incorrect.

however, there is no need for vitriol for nowhere did he state that as a social conservative politician he must therefore tell you how to run your life.

i've got no problem with social-fiscal conservatives, as long as they let me live freely, then they can muck around the marble halls all they want.

DeMint doesn't let you live freely, so you can start having problems with him at any time now.

[ChaosControl]

DeMint doesn't let you live freely, so you can start having problems with him at any time now.

Well it depends. Nothing social conservatives advocate would affect me since I already live a socially conservative life.

The people who would have to fear are those who don't live socially conservative lives.

Not only does it cost to have socially conservative policies enforced, it potentially causes a major backlash that brings about social liberalism much faster because it gets the spot light.

Take the *** marriage issue. Had the people who initially wanted marriage gotten their license quietly, you wouldn't hear much about it. Instead they were denied and run tot he courts and start a lawsuit and it gets national attention and begins a national movement. Each year more and more support *** marriage being legal, I bet had it just happened quietly and we had no law against it, that much less would have changed since it wouldn't have the same exposure.

By legislating morality, social conservatives end up shooting themselves in the foot.

[Feeding the Abscess]

DeMint is for the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, Military Commissions, etc.

Even aside from the drug war and other personal issues, he's "all up in your business," colloquially speaking.

[ChaosControl]

Ah true, I forgot that. I could never support someone who supports those things you mentioned. I value privacy too much.

[denison]

By legislating morality, social conservatives end up shooting themselves in the foot.

so true. it's always a catch 22. and then it can snowball, when you have people and groups support *** marriage as an agenda that will help futher their own cause. these small groups team up together and piggyback each others cause. distorting the true level of support.

morality is something society should handle, not government.

[denison]

but it looks like Jimmy is a neocon. ugh.

[EndDaFed]

You can't be a neoconservative and claim to be a fiscal conservative.

[denison]

You can't be a neoconservative and claim to be a fiscal conservative.

^^^true.

big war and large corporate bailouts does not a fiscal conservative make.

[wormyguy]

^^^true.

big war and large corporate bailouts does not a fiscal conservative make.
To be fair DeMint is strongly against bailouts.