Regular Guy Paul Mitchell delivered a speech last week where he said the following:
…anyone who knows me knows that I am a social conservative. I am also a fiscal conservative. I am also a foreign policy hawk. I see no conflict between these positions; indeed, it seems to me that each without the others would be incomplete.
Imagine if you will a society that embraced abortion, euthanasia, easy divorce and gay marriage, and that denigrated family life and religious faith. Could such a society, placing personal pleasure above family responsibility, ever show enough self-reliance to adopt fiscally conservative policies geared towards smaller government and lower taxes? I have a pretty good imagination, but I can’t imagine that. Could such a society find among its numbers enough young men with the courage and spirit of self-sacrifice to maintain its ability to defend its borders and its interests? I don’t believe so.
Likewise, would a people who turn first to government for the answer to every problem be likely to show the sense of responsibility necessary to defend life and family? I seriously doubt it.
I could go on in this vein, but I think you see my point. Our conservatism can be comprehensive, or it can be incomplete. And if incomplete, then it will be unstable and unworkable in the long run.
Bingo. This is a great summation of the nexus between social and fiscal conservatism. I would also remind folks of how often “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” politicos wind up sticking to their guns on the latter but not so much on the former – see Schwarzenegger, Arnold.