Tuesday, January 25, 2011

It's NOT Just The Economy Stupid!

Thank God for conservatives like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, and Michael Medved who are willing to confront the obvious...fiscal conservatism without social conservatism is really no conservatism at all. I've believed this for years! This is why I could never be apart of the libertarian party, or the new and ridiculous No Labels movement! Conviction is not a part-time job, but a core belief system. 

I'm still amazed when I hear so-called conservatives who call in to some of these radio shows and argue against pushing any social issues. The rant that's often repeated is "it's the economy stupid!" Don't get me wrong, I understand the idea of sticking to this mantra during a campaign to avoid distractions. However, we must understand the reason Republican or conservative candidates have to stick to the economy is because we've been inept at explaining the necessity for both fiscal and social conservatism. They work hand in hand. Many Republicans avoid topics like abortion, marriage and faith-based religion like the black plague, but they shouldn't. Their silence has not drawn allies, but enemies. Haven't you noticed that whenever conservatives compromise on their principles, not only does their voting base become indignant, but even Independent voters begin saying stuff like "Democrats and Republicans are all the same?" It's a no win situation. People like to know what you stand for and see you stick to it, whether they agree or not. Social conservatism when explained adequately, allows the constituent to see the stark differences between the candidates. I love political parties because they provide the best stage for showcasing and defining who's right and who's wrong. The problem with the Republican party is that we don't have enough talented and courageous individuals who will step up to the mike, and rise to the occasion. 

Liberals constantly claim that conservatives lack compassion, diversity sensitivity, and brains. Quite frankly, the total opposite is true, but I can't blame liberals for saying it. Unfortunately we've bowed at the altar of political correctness for too long. Followers need to be lead, first in word and then by action. Take the issue of Social Security for example: how many people do you know are aware that when the program was established under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) there were 40 payees per recipient, and it was meant to be a temporary plan? Today however, there are less than two payees per recipient. Before you open your mouth to say "so what," think about both the ramifications of that statistic, and how it came to be. Now, whether you agree with our social security program or not (I don't), think about the social issues I mentioned in the previous paragraph, and you'll soon realize that fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are not mutually exclusive, but intrical companions in order to sustain an economy and society alike.

Consider the effects that abortion has had on Social Security alone. We are all required to pay in to this system, despite the fact it's operating in the red (deficit). Most of us will never see a return on that investment. There's no money! Why? The answer is two fold, we've allowed our politicians to spend too much of our own money to buy us off (the epitome of selfishness), and we don't have enough people being born to keep the program sustainable. In other words, there aren't enough workers to pay for retirees. If you consider the black race alone, it's estimated that nearly half of our projected population has been killed off since Roe v. Wade. That's tens of millions of people who could've been working to help carry the load. By the way, this same argument can be applied to Medicaid and Medicare.

Now let's take a quick look at marriage. There is at least one reason why traditional marriage will always be superior to homosexual relationships even if you're not Christian, and this is not a gay-bashing statement, but just fact. Gays cannot reproduce other people! For those of you currently in an uproar, yes I'll concede, homosexuals can adopt in some states. Notice however, they must adopt babies produced by heterosexuals. I know it seems silly to say this, but you'd be surprised at how many times I've heard this argument, and this doesn't come up. Marriage is crucial to reproduction, as well as beneficial to teaching men and women to appreciate each other's differences, as they are meant to compliment one another in order to build stable communities. Families (married couples with children) who follow God's plan grow in the healthiest and safest system for children to learn about life, discover who God created them to be, as well as develop a work ethic that leads to self-reliance. This will in turn produce financially stable citizens that carry their own weight in society, thereby decreasing the welfare strain on the economy, and contributing to the country in a more productive- rather than just social security funding. Let me be transparent, as a former sinner who had a child out of wedlock, I can tell you with confidence and conviction that marriage is also far superior to shackin' up! Marriage gives you a sense of commitment, loyalty, fidelity, and security that simply does not exist in other relationships.

Lastly, everyone has faith in something, but not all believe in God. As a Christian I believe that life is a gift ordained by God. There are no accidents, even if your parents were idiotic enough to believe otherwise. In order for any society or country to continue existing, they must produce nearly two children per couple. If the birthrate is not maintained, it's only a matter of time before it collapses, because it will not be able to sustain it's own economy. One need not look any further than the former Soviet Union to see this. Their abortion rates are astronomical, largely due to the fact that they're anti-God. Life has no real value; so immorality, murder, and poverty run rampant. If we fail to recognize the existence of God in a society, why should any man care enough to support his fellow man (i.e. charitable giving or Social Security). Some might argue, "because it's the right thing to do." My response however is how do you know what's right if there is no God!? All thought is mere opinion and relativism without a higher authority! If life is important to God it must become important to us, and one of the bi-products of life is a productive, fiscally strong labor force. So, please don't tell me that social conservatism isn't essential! It's just as essential as fiscal conservatism!

1 comment:

  1. Love this! Far too few politicians stand for anything other than getting re-elected any more. This is one of the many reasons I feel that many Republicans try to stay away from any appearance of Social conservatism. They want to appear moderate to so they can get more votes. The sad fact is that many people would support them more if they would just pick a side and really stay with it. My grandfather once told me that you don't have to agree with someone who is a hardliner but you should respect that they have the courage to make a stand. Sadly, in today’s politics I see very few people that can stick to anything.