Understanding Social
Conservatives
Written by JB Williams
©2007 USA
Because the religious right is the most visible champion of
social conservative values, and the secular socialists have worked so hard to
make sure that extreme religious right remain the public demonized face of
social conservatism, it is in vogue to refer to social conservatives as some
mutant breed of social Nazis.
As a result, even many Republicans fear being painted with that
broad brush and seek to rid their party of this false stigma, proving how
socially progressive they can be by nominating a social liberal to lead their
party to victory in 2008.
However, in reality, social conservatism actually has little to
do with religion. In fact, until recent years, when the Democratic Party became
run by Democratic Secular Socialists, it wasn’t even an idea limited to the
right or Republicans. It was a very fundamental American precept shared by most
Americans on all sides of the political spectrum.
Is it just a right-wing effort to legislate
morality?
Indeed, for some it is. Those who support amending the
constitution every time some social difference crops up are looking to use
federal powers to limit personal freedom and liberty. There’s no getting around
it. Let’s face reality. Evangelicals are called to evangelize. They are
perfectly happy to do so from the pulpit, on the subway, on the street corner or
from the White House or halls of congress.
But this accounts for a very small segment of the social
conservative constituency. And this is why the founders made the amendment
process cumbersome.
On the other hand, those who have used activist courts to
pursue equally un-American ideals are guilty of the same thing in reverse. Those
who used a single court decision to "legalize" murder in the form of abortion,
or label every progressive perversion as some quasi-civil right are guilty of
the same thing of which they accuse the extreme right - just via different
federal powers, from a different branch.
This is unfortunately a majority in today’s DNC and that’s why
the founders never intended for the courts to be a legislative branch of
government.
But most social conservatives are not right-wing religious
zealots. There are actually very few extreme right-wing zealots in America. We
have many more left-wing nuts and they are not a majority either.
If not an effort to legislate morality, then
what?
It is a fundamental American concept. That less government is
better than more government. That nothing threatens personal freedom and liberty
like government does and that our federal government is the very last
institution that should ever be trusted with the power of life and death over
its people.
America was founded and built upon the idea that life, not
death, is an unalienable right of every innocent American citizen. This precept
was forever recorded in our nations founding document, our Declaration of
Independence, where the founders stated unequivocally which basic ideas we would
hold as self-evident and unalienable.
So, most social conservatives support life rather than death,
because it is a fundamental American precept. Because if one does not respect
and protect the sanctity of life, what other unalienable rights can they
possibly be trusted to protect and preserve?
This is why social liberals have a hard time earning the trust
of social conservatives. It has nothing to do with religion really, other than
the fact that our founders chose this fundamental American right on the basis of
their moral convictions for freedom and liberty.
It’s all about the fact that if you don’t respect and protect
something as basic as life, you can’t be trusted with anything more
complex.
Why is it so important to have socially conservative
conservatives?
Politically speaking, it actually comes down to two very valid
reasons tough to argue with.
As already stated, if one can not be entrusted with the
unalienable right to life itself, what can they be trusted with?
Conservatives believe in cause and effect. This means that
social conservatives understand that liberal social policies result in liberal
social spending and the growth of government.
The same way that conservatives understand that a weak national
defense system will result in war, not peace; weak social policies will result
in social ills that require ever increasing government solutions at taxpayers’
expense.
To be conservative is to understand that every action or
inaction has a natural set of inescapable consequences. If you mismanage money,
you won’t have any money and there will be nobody to blame but yourself. I know,
because I’ve tried it…
Likewise, if you mismanage your personal life, your personal
life will spin out of control and you will be looking for someone to help pick
up the pieces. Today, it has become all too common to look to the federal
government as the solution to such natural consequences.
The federal government through its legislative branch, could in
fact be given legislative authority over the issue of life, by way of amendment.
I don’t think this is a good idea. And even if we did, I don’t think the
legislative branch would ever pass a law legalizing abortion. That’s why the
legislative branch was circumvented by an activist court on the matter. An act
that will one day be overturned, once Americans come to grips with what they
have allowed to happen in their country.
How does this apply to other social
issues?
America is built upon a belief in individual rights, not
special rights for individual minority voting blocs. America is nothing more
than a vast collection of minority blocs, none of which have more power than the
other, or at least they aren’t supposed to have.
This means that individuals are free to make their own choices
so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others to make their choices.
We operate by majority (not minority) rule, but not a simple
majority. A simple majority would be a pure democracy, mob rule. America was
instead, purposefully designed and formed as a Representative Republic, whereby
a complex majority view would be upheld as relates to the limited public affairs
assigned to the government, of interest to all equally.
The Tenth Amendment says simply that all rights not assigned
specifically to the federal government in the constitution, remain the rights of
the people and their individual states. As you know, the constitution assigns
very limited powers to the federal government, though the fed has overstepped
all of those boundaries by now.
Gay Rights
Again, there is indeed a small right-wing contingency that
would like to legislate their moral beliefs that say homosexuality is a sin, an
abomination, immoral and therefore, should be illegal. But the constitution
assigns the federal government no such power to make such individual choices,
nor should it.
On the other side of the debate are those seeking to use any
federal or state branch of government willing to legislate special rights for
the homosexual community. Because our government has involved itself in
promoting traditional family values via its tax code and other social programs,
this group, among others, now seeks access to those federally mandated benefits
by redefining the definition of marriage.
But again, the constitution affords the federal government no
such powers. The federal government has no power to either re-define marriage,
or outlaw the private personal sexual practices of consenting adults.
Simply stated, it’s not a federal issue and we must stop making
a federal issue out of every little difference. We have lots of differences. The
federal government can not play peacemaker or equalizer for every little private
matter. It’s the wrong venue.
Economic Social Engineering
We have been involved in social engineering ever since the
graduated tax system was installed in America. There is no other way to describe
the taking of one’s rightful earnings against his will, and redistributing those
earnings to others who did nothing to earn them. It is a form of Democratic
Socialism, the redistribution of wealth, not to be confused with caring for
those "unable" to care for themselves.
This social conservative and many like me
Given the opportunity to publicly interview any of the socially
liberal candidates from either side of the political aisle who support abortion
on demand, I would ask only three questions and listen very carefully to their
answers.
Question # 1
— What do you think the founders meant by
these words?
a) "We hold these
truths to be self-evident,"
b) " that all men are created equal,"
c) " that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights"
d) " that among these are Life,"
Question # 2 — Why do you not uphold and
defend this most fundamental American right?
Question # 3 — If Americans cannot trust you
to uphold and defend the most basic of unalienable American right’s, why should
we trust you to uphold and defend any other?
Then I would finish my interview with one simple
statement…
I will agree to be as socially liberal as you want me to be, if
you will agree to spend not one more tax dollar on any government program
designed to deal with the natural consequences of liberal social policies.
