Tony Rubolotta

Mending the Conservative Split
June 18, 2009

The split among Conservatives who define themselves as social conservatives (SoCons) and fiscal conservatives (FiCons), each contending that their view and theirs alone is the key to conservative political success, is unraveling conservative unity.  Social and fiscal issues are inextricably linked.  Unlink them at your peril and you become the divided party of nebulous ideas and principles that appeal only to the ideological faithful.

Liberals suffer no such division and win elections despite the fact most Americans are conservatives at heart and generally apolitical by nature.  Liberals support gay marriage, abortion on demand at any time, the welfare state, racial discrimination by quotas, hate crime legislation to stifle free speech, social justice (whatever that is), excessive government regulation, free markets so tightly controlled they are no longer free, open borders, free this, free that and free everything else.  The liberal mantra of “diversity” is about nothing more than appealing to the selfish interests of the groups they can cull from the American herd.  Liberals offer a platform of social and fiscal carrots that various groups grab with the understanding that if I support your interests you will support mine.

There is not a liberal I know that doesn’t believe that what they stand for is morally right and a fiscal responsibility of government.  Liberals argue it is morally right that everyone should own a home and it is fiscally responsible for government to guarantee that right.  This is a socially and fiscally united view.  The economic catastrophe this has caused our nation is swept under the rug as the price we pay to be a “fair” society.  In the liberal mind, it is Wall Street and fat-cat capitalist bankers that are paying the price of this disaster, and there isn’t anything wrong with that.  In fact, the sooner we are rid of them and have government run everything, the better.

The schism between SoCons and FiCons seems to be more driven by a belief of what it takes to win versus an ideological consistency you can take the bank.  Offering the typically conservative albeit apolitical American voter half a plate is not a winning serving.  Let’s balance the budget and curb big government sounds good, but it isn’t complete.  Let’s ban abortions and gay marriage sounds good, but it isn’t complete.  Let’s spend government money responsibly, but what exactly does that mean?  You don’t have the right to do anything you please, but what exactly does that mean?  Liberals have all the answers, while SoCons have half and FiCons have half.

I claimed earlier and maintain that most Americans are apolitical and I mean that in a complimentary manner.  I would also maintain they are justifiably cynical.  They know they have to choose leaders but they also know that they have to discern which candidate may do the most good or the least harm.  They believe, and rightfully that politicians are untrustworthy.  They are in the surrealistic situation of choosing leaders they hope are good for everyone, even to the point of denying some of their own interests, but know the leaders they select always act in their own interest first, and the public interest second.  In this respect, Democrats and Republicans appear the same, so I may as well vote for the more benevolent crook.

Conservatism is right for America and it is right for the world, but what is it?  Liberty and responsibility are interlocked.  It would be unjust for me to claim a right to smoke if I did not also accept a responsibility for the consequences.  It would be unjust for me to claim a right to free speech and then slander another person.  It would be unjust of me to demand payments from one person to provide for the needs of another.  It would be unjust for me to buy things I cannot afford and demand that others make the payment.

Americans may be apolitical but have a keen sense of justice.  That sense comes from a Judeo-Christian heritage and would be quite different if our founders were Muslim or Hindu or anything else.  FiCons without SoCons are like bankers without a conscience.  SoCons without FiCons are like idealists without commonsense.  Both views are needed to balance liberty with responsibility, and isn’t that what we call justice?  Conservatism is the philosophy of justice, and that is a winning philosophy.  FiCons and SoCons need each other, and the sooner they come to that realization, the sooner we can elect leaders that prize justice above their self-interests.