Good one, Ms Alkon. Thanks.

Yes, very good, 'specially this—

Veronique de Rugy recently called out many Republicans for being "pro-business," but not actually "pro-market".

Now, in this particular election year, it so happens that no one can hold a candle to the Democrats for extracting money from business. But don't let ANYONE tell you that Republicans are less eager to pull those strings.

Say what you want about the Tea Party, they mean it... Their average JobBlow TP member really wants government reduced. Lugar didn't lose his seat for nothing. This movement may well be overwhelmed by slimy businessmen eventually... But so what?

It's ok to be bitter when you can do it sincerely, but don't pretend the whole world is corrupt. It isn't.

(There are probably some liberals who are truly concerned about people less fortunate than themselves, too.)

Conservative in that they don't have a problem with government intervention on things they don't do or like? But against government 'intrusion' when it inconveniences them or costs them money somehow.

Here's what I see:
The Dems want to give my money to the poor.
The GOP wants to give my money to the rich.

Democrats have been very, very good to rich people lately.

I've had conversations with various people about dissolving government departments and agencies, especially at the federal level. So many of them can't get that some things aren't the federal responsibility, and even some of them aren't the states responsibility.

The U.S. Constitution was designed with a limited federal role in the individual states. The fed should be dealing with foreign affairs and such. Their should be no Social Security, Medicare. The EPA could exist, but in a severely limited form, not the leviathan that it is now. FEMA shouldn't exist. Fatherland Security and the TSA shouldn't exist.

Actually if it weren't for the nanny state, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened. But the government taught the passengers not to fight back for years. If that had not been in place the concept of hijacking would not have been in place, and the rest of the plans would have failed.

As for the Republicans -- they are not conservative. Even a lot of the Tea Party members are socially conservative, but don't have the realization that imposing that conservatism on someone else restricts their liberty.

Their average JobBlow TP member really wants government reduced.

Well, sort of. They want spending reduced when it goes to those wasteful, lazy slobs over there but don't want any cuts to what they receive, which they are due, dammit!

And God forbid we cut defense spending.

It's true, The Right is a coalition of views, just as The Left is. The Right includes a relatively small group of the 'religious right', who might want gov intrusion in some areas of life. Firstly, this isn't reflective of conservative majority. Secondly, those on The Right believe that this is supposed to be decided on a local (State)level.

Conversely, gov will dictate some basic level of civil framework. Difference is, Leftists make it up to suite their needs. Ultimately the person-hood of those in power becomes that framework. Conservatism is based on what has worked for civilization, benefiting from the the long trial and error of history. So far, the principles of American (English) common law. Based on freedom of person, property rights, and limited government and taxes, impartiality, have worked like no other system has - to the extent that they were applied.

This post raises an important question. Someone should sit down and write a definition of conservatism and conservative political goals for which to use as a measuring stick against which to measure legislation and politicians.

I've written here before about my problem with social conservatives. Most of the things that they worry about are legitimate things to be worried about -- abortion, the coarsening of media, the degrading effects of welfare on society, and so on. However, few of these things are amenable to being fixed by laws, and that's what they keep tripping over.

"And God forbid we cut defense spending."

That's already happened. In constant-year dollars, the "core" defense budget -- excluding what's going to support our various overseas military actions -- peaked in 2006 and has declined about 20% since them. The real problem with the defense budget is that since WWII it's been a roller coaster; at various times Washington finds it convenient to neglect the military in order to fund social programs, and then something happens and it becomes necessary to launch expensive crash programs to catch back up. That isn't good for the military and it's especially not good for the aerospace industry that makes the modern military possible. No one wants to work in an industry where you're constantly getting hired one day and laid off the next.

When figuring money spent on defense as a percentage of government spending, don't forget about spending at state and local levels. State and local governments spend very little on defense.

Great post, Amy. Its too bad there isnt an ideologically consistent conservative out there who has been saying these things for decades.
Hey...wait....
THATS JUST CRAZY!!!!

My view, developed over several decades, is that most social conservatives are anti-abortion, pro-military, religious liberals. They are moral busybodies as opposed to Marxist busybodies. I believe this faction makes up the bulk of the Republican party. There only true disagreements with self-identifying liberals is what they get hysterical about and how they run other people's lives.

Few self-identifying social conservatives can articulate a strong, logical, consistent argument supporting their position--their argument is generally what they aren't, not what they are. (At a another blog I frequent, when a purely social conservative issue comes up, anyone who argues against it is attacked with ad hominem and straw man arguments. Lest liberals smugly say they are different, I actually find them worse.)

A genuine social conservative is a "classical liberal" (look it up) which translates into general, little 'l' libertarianism these days. The genuine conservative stance on same sex marriage is that marriage is none of the government's business and that governmental intrusion into marriage has done more harm to the institution than anything homosexuals have done or will ever do.

I should add that I partially disagree with Michael (above). Social conservatives appeal to tradition, but it's a made up tradition and has as little basis in fact as the nonsense spewed by the progressive left. For example, few people really support authentically traditional marriage, just a feel good version largely invented in the 20th century (same with weddings; so-called traditional weddings aren't.)

Fiscal conservatism, on the other hand, is a very real, concrete, philosophy (though again, more in line with "classical liberal" as defined by Hayek. It is above all based on the primacy of the individual over institutions. As Michael stated is it "[b]ased on freedom of person, property right, and limited government." The primary purposes of government is to ensure property rights and our basic freedoms of self-determination are defended. (This doesn't mean government is gone--that's the stance of anarchists of the right and left--just that it's function is limited. So, for example, public schools would teach, not be the organizing authority of sports and social programs, which are legion. Ensuring general food safety is a function of government, dictating what food we eat is not.)

BTW, the common defense is a function of government, but our current military is about the projection of power, not defense. It really is imperialistic. We could slash military spending by half and be just as safe as we are today. (Putting aside that it's a provably highly ineffective weapon, just how many attack submarines do we need anyway? [They've turned into really expensive missile frigates.])

The Afghanistan war has been a colossal waste of money and lives. We overthrew the Taliban by paying off tribal chiefs and backing them up with special forces using B-52s for carpet bombing. It was pretty low-tech. Once the Taliban was gone, we should have left and reminded the word that if you fuck with us, you die and we don't rebuild your damn country. Even insane dictators understand the concept of leave us alone and we don't kill you.

I do consider myself a conservative fiscally. I tend to vote Republican, because of the fiscal issues, but I am sick to death of being told by the GOP that I should support a total ban on abortion, not support gay marriage, or support reading the Bible in every school or I am not a valid voter.

Can't vote for the Dems, though, because I sure as hell do not support free healthcare for everyone, raising pathetic public school teachers salaries yet again, or completely banning handguns.

Stupid two party system...

"The GOP wants to give my money to the rich."

DrCos - could you explain that statement?

"The GOP wants to give my money to the rich."

DrCos - could you explain that statement?

I can explain that Dave B. For a leftist, all money belongs to the gov't so when it gets taxed away from someone it is now the people's money. If you give some of it back to the person who earned it in the form of a tax break/incentive then you are "giving money to the rich."

You can find hypocrisy in a lot of places. Take a look at pro-choice women. They are pro-choice for women but not for men. Shouldn't a man whose girlfriend gets pregnant have the choice of whether he wants to be a father? When you pose that question to a feminist they revert to Victorian mores about responsibility and "if he didn't want to be a father he should have kept it in his pants." And my favorite, "It's in the best interest of the child that he pay for 18 years of child support." You know what else in the best interest of a child? Not getting it's brains suck out of its head with a vacuum.

Plenty of people for freedom until they have to pay the consequences.

> They want spending reduced when it goes to those
> wasteful, lazy slobs over there but don't want
> any cuts to what they receive, which they are
> due, dammit!

This is just not true.

Cynicism is a sin.

We really are owed things for the money we give to government... But we're not owed everything. To believe otherwise, and snort about it in the tone you've just used, is to live in a childish dream world.

You remind me of that scene in Amelie where she decides to try to do a petty favor for someone... And if they aren't gloriously grateful, then she'll just live as a hateful bitch for the rest of her life.

"You know what else in the best interest of a child? Not getting it's brains suck out of its head with a vacuum."

Hyperbole and fetus. Two words worth looking up!

I filled up my tank today. I'm driving to work in a pirate.

Right wing socialists, left wing socialists, they're all the same....slaves to the privately owned central banks.

UW Girl: "I tend to vote Republican, because of the fiscal issues, but I am sick to death of being told by the GOP that I should support a total ban on abortion, not support gay marriage, or support reading the Bible in every school

Which republicans are fighting for thee views? The career republicans stay as far away from these issue as possible - they would easily vote with dems on these issues.

As for conservatives like me. I am totally opposed to the current law on abortion because it was bad law! To repeat, not because of the moral or religious issue but it was bad, meaning 'a corruption of' the law. I just want judges not to make up stuff - known as legislating from the bench. It should be a State issue.

As for the bible statement - seriously?

And gay marriage is another issue which the Feds have no business in. And even the states should only care for a limited amount of reasons - which should not include taxes. Why should it be anyone's business for tax purposes if I'm married or not? For inheritance and 'next of kin' issues, they should default to a spouse or a designated individual. And for adoption - I think people in every state have a right to choose if they, as a society want to allow adoption by whatever criteria. If you think that a gay couple should be allowed to adopt - good for you - you get to say that in a free vote. But marriage was a religious institution and should be kept as such!

Well Michael, you had me for the first two paragraphs. Roe v. Wade was bad, unconstitutional law. Put it to a vote at the state level, I would vote for it. But that never happened, and that is why I oppose Roe v. Wade. Much more could be said about it, but for puirposes of this post, thats enough.
Your second paragraph - couldn't agree more. I am hardly a Christian. Don't want to live under Sharia of any stripe. But try as I might, I just can't find any of these bible wielding warriors for God that want to burn witches and make rock and roll illegal hiding under my bed. I check for them under my bed and in my closet every night.Never see them. They must be pretty crafty, that "religious right." I've been told for over forty years they are coming to take away my guitar and force me to go to church. I also cant help but notice the same people who scream at me that christians want to impose their morality on all of us have been very, very successful in forcing their morality on me, and do so by force of law and regulation at every turn. But Im ready for those gosh darn Christains. Wherever they are.
On the third paragraph you lose me though, and kind of get to the author's point. When marriage was recognized by The State, it became at best quasi-religious. Put another way, when a religious ceremony was brought to The State for enforcement and recognition under the law, all right to call it a religious ceremony was lost. You have a right to a purely religious ceremony, and churches should have the right to refuse to perform them for gays, mixed race marriages or anyone else they don't want to perform them for. But if you want your union recognized under the law, it becomes a lawful contract. This is particularly clear when a marriage need not even take place in a church or before clergy - a judge or a ships captain can perform the ceremony. One of the few functions of government is the recognition and enforcement of contracts voluntarily entered into by consenting adults. If two men or two women want the same contract I have with my wife enforced on their behalf before the law, there is no reason to deny them that right. And if Christians don't like it, they shouldn't have taken their marriages to the government for enforcement to start with.The denigration of marriage they fear same sex unions will cause was actually accomplished when they invited or at the very least did not vigorously oppose its lawful recognition and enforcement.
Now I do confess that this is one issue I find myself emotionally between Scylla and Charybdis. On the one hand, people who will wrap themselves in the Constitution while using it no less shamelessly than Democrats to enforce their own version of social engineering. On the other hand, Dan Savage. May a pox infect them all. But back to the article - my dislike of someones behavior is not going to move me off my principles. That is to abandon the Constitution and on many issues my humanity, and that is somone noone can take from you. regardless of how many surrender it.

This is particularly clear when a marriage need not even take place in a church or before clergy - a judge or a ships captain can perform the ceremony. -- The WolfMan at May 11, 2012 6:03 PM

Or even a Notary Public in most states. ;-)

Really the only reason the government is interested in marriage is because they have tried to do social engineering through the tax laws originally and it perpetuates in the welfare, medicare/medicaid and social security systems.

Loving v. Virginia was a valid decision -- but it was a Fourteenth Amendment case, and not anywhere else in the Constitution.

I have to agree that Roe V. Wade was not constitutional. There are many others that have come from abuse of the commerce (Wickard v. Filburn) and general welfare (Helvering v. Davis) clauses.

If we can get those corrected, then maybe we can move back to what the country should be.

Jim P., big thumbs up on the Wickard v. Filburn citation. They told us what was up. In black and white and in so many words. People.just.don't. want to.listen.

My two main points regarding state recognized marriage are as follows.

For the reasons Jim pointed out, I am really ticked off with the gov deciding how much money I have to live on based on whether I am married or not, or have children or not. Keeping in mind that Mitt Romney is not short of children and he isn't struggling (and I don't' begrudge him for it). So I resent the gov's involvement in marriage in that regards.

But what underlines my point in general is that, for an extremely long time, marriage has been more than just a contract. It was a fusion of two people's future. A creation of a common destiny. (People rarely got divorced, even when their religion allowed it.) I see it has having been more then definable set of legal obligations. I therefore don't see what business the state has in recognizing something it can have no knowledge about, and no business enforcing.

I am not against the state recognizing a significant other in a person's life. For instance, in a next of kin issues, I would agree that it would be ridiculous to to treat a long time gay partner as a non-entity. So I am not opposed to the state registering legal unions - as a solution to administrative problems. It should come with clear cut definitions of what obligations and privileges come with it.

Either way, I too feel that it isn't a platform that should make or break it as far as voting goes. It is much more important the rule of law and democracy be re-established. If it isn't, then none of this is really going to matter much anyway.

Here's an example of what I mean. Why can't Mormons marry more than one wife? It perfectly legal for a man to live in one house with multiple women to whom he is married in all but in name. But the minute he goes into a church to have such an arrangement religiously sanctioned - the state has a right to arrest him for it. Why? What right does the have in religious doctrine?