The personal responsibility part which you said

implies personal freedom but is not geared toward giving license for all activities

is where we have to be careful. What you say is true. The problem arises when we take that past its minimal conclusion (such as abortion, which takes another life) and apply it to other problems such as drug use. We may see these as wrong, but things like this fall under personal responsibility as well as federalism.

There is no constitutional place for federal control/ban of things like alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc which most of us socons disagree with and have a tendency to want to control.

Socons will have to understand this in order to agree with libertarians and non-social conservative small-government conservatives (however small of a group that is, and it seems to be very small).

nt

Social conservatives have gained more in the past eight years than we have in my lifetime.

It’s the fiscal conservatives that have gotten the short end of things. When social conservatives stop acting like democrats when it comes to spending, the Republican Party will return to its previous popularity.

If social conservatives continue their populist ways, the Republican Party will eventually give up on their causes and both groups will become insignificant for a very long time.

The “tier thingy” is OK, but your conclusions aren’t.

First of all, we need to welcome moderates and “Rockefeller Republicans”. They just can’t have influence when it comes to writing policy or developing programs. The leadership of the Party needs to be conservative and, most of all, representative of small government principles.

Second, SoCon concerns should be focused on a limited number of priorities. First among them is the right-to-life and overturning Roe. The HLA – which version? – is a dead issue and will not pass in the near or even distant future. Definitions of marriage should be left to the states, and I think elections have repeatedly shown that we’re in safe hands there.

Beyond that, the whole concept of “faith based” initiatives funded by the government is a BAD idea and should die a violent death.

Conservatism means small government promoting only those things specifically found in the Constitution. It does not mean promoting liberal, wealth sharing ideas any more than it means promoting biblical principles that in themselves are meant for individuals to follow.

If the SoCon movement wants to transform into a Religious Progressive movement, they should start a third party. I’m sure Mike Huckabee would be available. Fortunately, I don’t see that happening.

NT, as usual, has stated most of the points I would make (if I didn’t know better, I’d swear he was my ghost-writer…). I’m reco’ing this because this is a discussion that should be had. I’m trying to work for a living today, so, in the spirit of Gamecock, I’ll just say “more later”.

1) I disagree with your title. I think social conservatism is mandatory for someone to declare themselves a “conservative,” but to say that “social conservatism is conservatism” is to imply that someone who supports socon positions but is liberal on defense and spending would still be “conservative” and I don’t agree with that.

2) But then you redeem yourself with your “pyramid”, which reflects my thoughts that one must adhere (to some degree) to all facets of conservatism to be able to call themselves a “conservative.” As has been observed on RS numerous times, we almost never see a “conservative” like I mentioned above – a socon is virtually always a defcon. The problem comes in when they’re like GWB and are “2-legged” conservative.

3) The “2-legged conservative” is what we usually refer to as a “moderate”…one who either leaves out socon or fiscon positions. We have a lot of socon/defcons out there – GWB being one of them, and a LOT of defcon/fiscons – aka. libertarians. As 908 mentioned, I would not consider Bush and his ilk to be conservatives, nor would I consider libertarians to be conservatives. So, again…that somewhat flies in the face of your diary title.

4) All that said, my biggest objection is to your statement “Moderate Republicans must get the hell out. Your money is no good here anymore.“. That, IMO, is dead wrong. I welcome the moderates to the party. I welcome their vote. I’ll even work with them on policy and help them understand (hopefully) why social conservatism and/or fiscal conservatism is vital. But I do NOT want them in leadership positions in the GOP…neither the libertarians nor the free spenders (even if the latter ARE socons). If the party leadership were taken over by those who lean libertarian, there would undoubtedly be an exodus of social conservatives in favor of some sort of populist party, just as NT and 908 posit. Think 2000 election, but worse.

So aside from some of my hair-splitting, I think what perhaps you really are saying is “social conservatism is mandatory to conservative thought”, and in that, I agree.

We need to base our platform and our philosophy on the Constitution. It is of itself a conservative document. Educate, campaign and govern using the Constitution as a guide. That is what the Founders wanted.

Time is limited…

This is where the debate rages – are the fiscons willing to accept that our economy rests on a moral foundation? Can Libertarians take the philosophical, theological and historical position that this country would not exist were it not for religious principles?

AND: Among these principles are limited government and personal property.

It becomes a matter of priority – while all legs of the stool are required to sit, when we Conservatives sit eyeball to eyeball what must come first in terms of agreement? It is our moral foundation, then personal responsibility, then economic freedom (all of which put up a firewall from government), then limited government and national defense (those areas where government is a necessary evil).

Aaron Gardner December 1st, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. CST (link)

There is a fine line between SoCons and Christian Progressivism.

I agree whole heartedly. Honesty while I get extremely frustrated with Christian Progressives they are like immature siblings who must be brought back into the fold.

Anyone who calls themselves Christian and wants to steal from their neighbor via excessive taxes does not know the first thing about real tough love. Again, these may be our black sheep ~ those who demonstrate clouded thinking but we’ve got more in common and I believe that they can be won over even while including them in our common cause of liberty.

The idea that Social Conservativism is compatible with the confiscation of private property may be the greatest tragedy of modern conservatism. Because real moral leadership will come from SoCons who are 110% fight-to-the-death committed to getting the grubby hands of government off of our pocket books.

NightTwister December 1st, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. CST (link)

Social conservatives have gained more in the past eight years than we have in my lifetime.

What can I say, we all got shafted by George W, fiscons, socons and limcons. Defcons got mostly what they wanted even if they grip about how war was conducted. We did get two very strong justices. W was never a movement leader, never directly advocating conservative principles to the people (well) and became myopic in his attention toward the war. Now let’s find a real man or woman, an assertive leader who didn’t go to Yale. That is my first criteria – our next presidential nominee must not have attended an Ivy League school at any time. If you can’t learn what you need to know about life without getting kudos from boot liking erudite professors then you don’t deserve my vote.

No one needs to “apologize”.
NightTwister December 1st, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. CST (link)

This means socons have to stop spending government money like my ex-wife and fiscons have to stop saying they’d be better off if we placate those that have no moral courage.
This is good stuff. As far as I’m concerned SoCons who spend wildly are immoral, they are money changers and should be done away with also. I see a pattern developing here, I’m kicking out all of the freeloaders (more to come on this…).

Sorry, don’t agree with your conclusions.
mbecker908 December 1st, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. CST (link)

First of all, we need to welcome moderates and “Rockefeller Republicans”. They just can’t have influence when it comes to writing policy or developing programs.
Do you have any idea who you are referring to? These Rockefeller Republicans represent 2% of Republicans. And they want undue influence in our party. They are used to getting the choice seats in restaurants and having their cake and eating it too. They are the Athenians, the Plutocrats, run amuck. They need to know their place, we’ll take their vote – but their money will not buy them more influence, they must work the same polls and struggle for the same goal: The Restoration and Preservation of our Country. They must see the bigger picture; they will have no money if our country is overrun.

What these people need to do is look at the land owners of our revolution who considered it a privilege to live here and willing to risk everything. They put their lives and sacred honor on the line to fight alongside anyone who would pick up a gun in defense of freedom. None were Royalty, all tilled the soil they owned. Some lead, others followed leaders no matter who they were, that is America.

As for policy writing, again by definition these people think they are the smartest men and women in the room. Do you honestly think that they are going to defer to the likes of you and me? They need to be marginalized, so that they are confronted with the choice: join the Dems where they will have 0% influence or get on board with a conservative agenda even if it means standing up for Middle America and articulating trite values like modesty, integrity and discipline.

I’m going to stop now. My God, I love the fire here at RS… I am willing to fight, bleed and die for my country and for my brothers at arms. That is for sure. Nuff said.

What I’m trying to say is that our fundamental problem as the ONLY Party that can save this country is a lack of coherent vision of what America is. We used to have an over arching philosophy that permeated our national existence.