Fiscal and Social Conservatives

There was, and I believe within a small minority there still is, a distinction in the country between fiscal and social conservatives. We now use an umbrella term for both, because most politicians are both. The difference being that Fiscal conservatives may oppose this bailout but not civil unions for homosexuals. Why? Because a fiscal conservative's argument may be that he opposes government intruding into the lives of its citizens more than absolutely necessary. Obviously, one who says such a thing than proceeds to vote on some bill dictating what a person can or cannot do in the privacy of their own home is not just contradictory, it is hypocrisy. 

I can oppose a fiscal conservative and still speak to them with a general amount of respect. Social conservatives I have a much harder time having a coherent conversation with. Note that this discussion leaves out the abortion, and if I must, capital punishment debates. I'm discussing religious, political and sexual freedoms. Because I agree that the government should have it's limits and those limits should stop, at least, at the bedroom door. We should not be a nation of gossipers. We should be a puritanical national that obsesses over whether or not our citizens are using the missionary position, birth control, or even bothers to find a member of the opposite sex to engage in 'carnal relations' with. We should not be a nation that feels the need to take loyalty oaths everyday in school. The first one, when becoming a citizen, should be more than enough. 

We should not be a country that worries about the faith of each other's children instead of the faith of our own. Fiscal aid to the poor is generally decried as government paternalism while social controls are described by the same flock as reinforcing the moral fiber of our country. It is time that we look to the individual once again to instill morality on his off spring. Government is intended to ensure our safety while effecting our freedoms as little as possible. I recognize that my opponents believe I'm the hypocrite. That I cannot argue that, "That government is best which governs least." while at the same time advocating government spending, welfare, bills and amendments which specify certain rights and potentially attack others. That is the beauty of debate, we can both shout, we may both be wrong. I can uphold Paine and Smith at the same time, just as they can, hell, just as Reagan did. We both use a philosophical buffet. I accept laissez-faire while advocating government spending because I acknowledge the exceptions Smith made. I can quote Paine as I have, and will continue to do, because I recognize that he upheld government subsidies for the young and the poor.