Here's an interesting take from the Evangelical Outpost blog, at the just-completed FRC Washington Briefing. Is the timidity of conservatives (not just conservative bloggers) in emphasizing our opposition to abortion in political argument once again attributable to a mis-guided electoral pragmatism? Terror of the dreaded "single-issue" appellation used so successfully to make us feel marginalized in the past? EO says:
The most significant insight I gained from The Washington Briefing was not about the candidates but about the bloggers: Right-leaning bloggers are out of touch with a large portion--if not the majority--of conservatives in America.Again, not to be too hard on bloggers or other fiscally conservative commentators here. More power to all who labor tirelessly to identify and dispel the clouds of big-government, utopian, collectivist, socialist, anti-free-market, neo-Marxist gas emitted from the left. Shout it from the blog spots and the house-tops, but learn also from EO's astute observation:
The second most significant insight (though I had been ruminating on this for a few months) is that the semantic distinction between "social conservatives" and "fiscal conservatives" presents a false dichotomy. Conservatism is rooted in principles (transcendent moral order, social continuity, prudence, etc) that naturally have implications for economics. If you are a conservative you are conservative about matters of society and thus likely to espouse economic policies that are fiscally conservative as well. But conservatism cannot begin with economic or fiscal issues as the primary concerns, much less push social issues to the periphery. Anyone who thinks tax reduction is essential while abortion and marriage are secondary or unimportant cannot rightly be considered to be "conservative", at least not by the standards of the American conservative tradition. Currently we don’t have a label for people whose primary philosophical concern is their pocketbooks. It is becoming increasingly apparent, though, that we can simply call them "Republicans."Let's not fear being true conservatives, fiscally and socially, ideologically or politically. It's a winner, and trumpeting an uncertain sound rallies nobody to the battlefront.
1 comment:
I look at it this way.
Abortion is a violation of the commandment not to kill.
When my money is taken through taxes to fund something that does not benefit me (no matter how great the cause) it is stealing and a violation of the commandment not to steal.
Therefore, taxing me to provide protection (policemen, soldiers), payment for representatives, and minimal administration costs is not stealing since I and everyone else benefit.
Taxing me to provide health care for those who can't or who have chosen not to buy their own is stealing from me. Taxing me to provide food for those who can't afford their own is stealing from me.
Now, two commandments are violated by abortion and overtaxation. Killing and stealing.
If someone comes to my door and is hungry and standing next to them is someone who is about to be killed, my first obligation is to the one being killed. I need to try to save that person.
That solved, I need to feed the hungry person. And, I do not do that by walking into my neighbors house and demanding that they give me some food or I will have them put into jail. I do that by going into my pantry and making them lunch.
So, that is how I vote. My first obligation is to the one about to be killed. After that, my obligation is to choose leaders that don't steal to help others, but who encourage personal involvement and compassion to help the needy.
That said, I will probably vote for the person who has somewhat of a chance to win who is not Hillary or Obama and am praying that that person is a prolife, fiscal conservative.
Post a Comment