A social conservative who is not a fiscal one.
From an AP story on the budget negotiations (or lack there of).
On another budget front, state Sen. James Meeks, who is considering a run for governor as an independent, joined officials with the union representing thousands of state employees to urge leaders to spend $50 million for 2,000 front-line workers who provide key state services, such as prison guards and child abuse investigators.
This raises an interesting point however, if you are a religious conservative. Isn't this in some ways a better way for the state to spend money than on a lot of other things? That is government looking out for orphans and prisoners. Two groups often mentioned in the New Testament not as entities to ignore or place scorn upon but to help and love.
So can you be a social conservative and not a fiscal conservative and still appeal to religious voters?
OneMan
13 comments:
Oneman, I think you raise a very valid point. Conservatives seem to be split based on what they consider the holy grail of conservatism. For the fiscal cons, low taxes and limited government are the key--and they are unbending on these. For us social conservatives, it is prolife and pro-traditional marriage. While we would prefer low taxes and limited government, we can tolerate a littel flexibility here as long as our candidate is a warrior on the social issues. That's why social conservatives really have an unbending ally in the White House. Bush has not wavered on any important social issues.
I think Meeks really hurts Judy because Judy is definitely a social liberal and really doesn't even hold tight to fiscal conservatism, so she angers both camps.
If Meeks is in there as an Indy, then I'll be half of the conservative coalition votes for him. At least the Oberwiess block.
Surely you jest.
Oberweis supporters backing a candidate who wants to raise the income tax by 67%.
Don't hold your breath. That is not going to happen
I still think it is an interesting question Cal. If he becomes a candidate by getting in the race I would argue he would be much more viable than the constitution party guy.
Then for fiscal and social conservative does fiscal trump social or the other way around.
So can you be a social conservative and not a fiscal conservative and still appeal to religious voters?
That's the definition of a religious voter.
I hope people see Meeks for what he is: A Statist. He wants the state to rule our lives, economically and socially. Atleast with Dems and the GOP, you get to keep atleast some of your freedom. I hope conservatives who claim that they support less government won't be fooled by someone like Meeks. Please people, see him for what he is!
The litmus test for Meeks is school choice. If he's against it, then the Unions (teachers and otherwise) are "his people."
If he's for school choice, or sees the light and is persuaded, then he's worthy of consideration by "non-fiscally" conservative voters.
You can't be taken seriously as an advocate for the disadvantaged while supporting an education system intent on keeping them poor and uneducated.
__
As to the broader issue of the post, religious conservatives are admonished to help the poor and disadvantaged. How this is translated as a mandate for a stagnating welfare state is a bit of a stretch.
Can government help people in need? Yes, and liberals and conservatives should be able to hash out the best ways to do that.
I'll start taking the liberals admonishing religious conservatives more seriously when they support ideas like funding 'faith-based initiatives' for those struggling to regain control of their lives.
Troubled people are far more likely change their lives for Jesus, Allah, or Buddha that they are for Nurse Ratchett.
The workers in those institutions will do the work without the absurd pension demands to boot.
___
BTW Cal,
If Meeks is in the race, I'll vote for him over Blago or Topinka in a heart beat.
The simple truth is that religious conservatives who try to mix their social conservatism with a fiscal libertarianism are just not thinking consistently. The religious right has, quite simply, been hijacked by the secular right on certain issues.
What Meeks has to do to win is to call out the conservative-libertarian brand of Christian conservative pastors and make them debate him on the Scriptural merits of the case. In my experience, there isn't a whole lot of theological depth there, and once you can get them to stop posturing and actually discuss the text there isn't much for them to stand on.
It might scare off the Americans United for Church and State crowd (but, then again, they get paid to overreact), and perhaps the swing votes in the collar counties. But if Meeks could make that case, he would make a lasting and significant contribution to politics in this state.
I agree with Extreme Wisdom. Meeks disappoints me. I had hoped as a minister he would propose faith-based initiatives for our prisons and troubled families. And advocate for school choice. My post here on the schools:
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/
2006/04/let-our-children-go.html
I agree with Extreme Wisdom (and Anne).
It is interesting Meeks is considered though... by conservatives here... I get a sense of talk on common talk for including...
..as opposed to Democrats where it's talk about excluding i.e. why Duckworth is illegit...
not a rigid truism... just a sense Republicans a broader view and talk about what's essential and fundamental and what can be disagreed on..
while the Dems continue onto true believer purism and driving folks out.
I am a conservative and focus more on social issues but am an economic conservative also (with some misgivings on trade)
I will definitely vote for MEEKS over Blagojevich or Topinka.
Both are phony and ethically challenged. I do NOT agree with MEEKS on everything BUT I think he is more real. I also did not vote for Oberweiss but for Brady.
Social conservatives will flock to Meeks.
If they do, they will be in for a big surprise when he pushes to raise the income tax 67%.
Not sure what Anonymous means by "libertarian Christian conservative pastors." That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
The Christian Right believes in the type of Big Government intervention in our private lives that Meeks advocates. They want the Good Book to be adopted as the basis for state action, in the same way that fundamentalist Islamic leaders want the government guided by the Koran.
How the heck is that "libertarian?"
James Meeks for governor is the best thing for Illinois politics in the last 100 years. He has a combination of values that can make a multitude of voters happy. His values make a lot of sense, and I think he stands on them. I'm very tired of politicians with no backbone. With so much deception at every level of our society now, one begins to question our survival.
Post a Comment