[EastCoastAmerican]

In American politics, the Conservatives are often portrayed as the party of small government, a movement which favors limiting the power of the federal branch so that it cannot infringe upon the citizens' private lives.

What I've noticed is that many Republicans are not entirely consistent in this regard. Many Republican leaders championed social issues which would increase the size and scope of the federal government, or interfere in citizen's private lives. A lot of social conservatives, such as Rick Santorum, favor using the power of the federal government for certain measures, such as outlawing abortion across all 50 states or creating a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Many social conservatives also wish to ban all forms of pornography, an act which would require excessive government control and oversight of all forms of media.

In several cases Republicans advocate the opposite of a non-interfering government. For Republicans in favor of such laws which expand government control and can interfere in the private lives of citizens (banning flag-burning, gay marriage, porn, etc.), my questions for you are:

1. Specifically, how will you implement these laws in such a way that they interfere as little as possible with citizen's lives?

2. Would you be in favor of using the power of the federal government to enforce the law across all 50 states, or leave each decision up to each state? What if state lawmakers rule contrary to your wishes?

3. What are your views regarding the separation of church and state? What are your thoughts of a Christian incorporating religious doctrine into law? What about a non-Christian doing the same thing? What if the religious doctrine interferes in citizen's private lives (such as legalizing and enforcing the Ten Commandments in a Buddhist community)?

I appreciate any answers you can give me!

[Rainbow Crow]

The idea of small government was cheapened into "strong government with low taxes" as far as I can tell. Sorry, I know that's not the answer you were looking for, but it may be something to keep in mind when fundamentalist neo-conservatives with Libertarian tendencies start showing up in the thread.

[Rich]

In American politics,

American politics was founded as a joke, murdering, raping, torturing, thieving slave owners waffling on about freedom. And it continues in said fashion. Its like Nazism, don't look for any though consistency, its just a bunch of slogans and prejudices masquerading as a plan for governance. Hence the Tea partiers who tell the federal government to get its hands off my Medicare and back Bridge to Nowhere supporter Sarah Palin. When most White Americans say their anti welfare, small government, they just they're anti Black people getting welfare. in addition though the whole governance of America is a total mess, with President, Senate, House, Governor, State Senate, State House, Supreme court and State supreme court how could anyone possible make an informed judgement on the performance of a policy, a politician or a candidate. The best system is a unitary parliament with proportional representation. This allows serious political platforms to emerge and be debated. It means every politician doesn't have to spend their time posturing to the most uninformed and disinterested part of the electorate. America is the worst system because it means that money is hugely influential in each individual electoral contest.

[Drlee]

^^

Ignoring those idiotic comments.......

In American politics, the Conservatives are often portrayed as the party of small government, a movement which favors limiting the power of the federal branch so that it cannot infringe upon the citizens' private lives.

I think you are talking about two potentially different things. It is entirely possible to have a very small government which is very intrusive. It does not cost anything, using your example, to ban abortion.

I am not sure I understand your questions. The Justice Department costs very little compared to other branches. We have a separation of church and state now. This is not much of an expense for the federal government.

As for porn, flag-burning and abortion, small government conservatives such as those who used to run the republican party would not have the government involved in any of this. No right thinking social libertarian would ban any of those. Some of these idiots masquerading as conservatives now would but they are racists not small government people.

[EastCoastAmerican]

^^

Ignoring those idiotic comments.......

I think you are talking about two potentially different things. It is entirely possible to have a very small government which is very intrusive. It does not cost anything, using your example, to ban abortion.

I am not sure I understand your questions. The Justice Department costs very little compared to other branches. We have a separation of church and state now. This is not much of an expense for the federal government.

As for porn, flag-burning and abortion, small government conservatives such as those who used to run the republican party would not have the government involved in any of this. No right thinking social libertarian would ban any of those. Some of these idiots masquerading as conservatives now would but they are racists not small government people.

I agree with your comments on small government and intrusion being separate (state and local governments can at times be very intrusive), but Republican leaders try to present themselves as both of these things.

My questions are meant to ask American social conservatives how they'd implement their policies while still maintaining the role of a small, non-intrusive government.

[hip hop bunny hop]

How on earth is restricting who can receive federal & state marriage benefits to heterosexual couples increasing government size or it's intrusiveness?

[Pants-of-dog]

How on earth is restricting who can receive federal & state marriage benefits to heterosexual couples increasing government size or it's intrusiveness?

Because the government would have to verify that my beloved and I are actually male and female when we get married. Now I like my government, but not enough to let them into my pants, even if they are made of dog.

[hip hop bunny hop]

Eh? Verify? Your sex is stated on your birth certificate, your drivers license, etc. You can't bluff this shit. Besides, various states mandate testing for various diseases before approving marriage; there's no reason they couldn't have you drop trou in the doctors office quick like.

[Pants-of-dog]

Eh? Verify? Your sex is stated on your birth certificate, your drivers license, etc. You can't bluff this shit. Besides, various states mandate testing for various diseases before approving marriage; there's no reason they couldn't have you drop trou in the doctors office quick like.

So, you support government testing you medically before you get married?

I guess that means you don't really support a small government.

[Drlee]

....increasing government size or it's intrusiveness

You don't think that the government making moral judgments is intrusive? Suppose it determined that it was immoral to own weapons. How about if the government decided to ban baptism by immersion and only allow sprinkling? What if the government decided that it sould be illegal for blacks to marry whites. You would not consider that intrusive?

The problem with so many so-called conservatives is that they do not understand that American conservatism is based upon early libertarianism. The Republican presidential candidate in 1964 was Barry M. Goldwater, as I frequently mention. He was the author of the "The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960". This book was ghost written by Bozell who was William F. Buckley, Jr's brother in law. Is that conservative enough for you? Seriously?

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

“Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism”

The rights that we have under the Constitution covers anything we want to do, as long as its not harmful. I can't see any way in the world that being a gay can cause damage to somebody else,”

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

So. I think that if you were to consider yourself a conservative that perhaps the greatest conservatives of our times would disagree.

[EastCoastAmerican]

Eh? Verify? Your sex is stated on your birth certificate, your drivers license, etc. You can't bluff this shit. Besides, various states mandate testing for various diseases before approving marriage; there's no reason they couldn't have you drop trou in the doctors office quick like.

This constitutes an invasion of privacy.

Remember how Republicans flipped out when airport security x-rayed and padded down children?

They were doing this for security reasons.

Imagine the uproar your suggestion would cause if the givers of marriage licenses demanded that couples expose themselves to total strangers!

In regards to disease testing, how is this a good example for restricting marriage? Isn't this intrusive upon the lives of private citizens?

[hip hop bunny hop]

In regards to disease testing, how is this a good example for restricting marriage? Isn't this intrusive upon the lives of private citizens?

Eh? When did I say that this is an example of restricting marriage? The point of the tests is so both parties are knowledgeable of any communicable diseases (STD or otherwise) that their fiancee has.

The problem with so many so-called conservatives is that they do not understand that American conservatism is based upon early libertarianism. The Republican presidential candidate in 1964 was Barry M. Goldwater, as I frequently mention. He was the author of the "The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960". This book was ghost written by Bozell who was William F. Buckley, Jr's brother in law. Is that conservative enough for you? Seriously?

Lee, there's no shortage of times wherein you have stated something strikingly similar to the above, so similar it wouldn't surprise me to learn you've a word file filled with these quotes and some of your own phrases ready for copy & pasting.

However, as you should be aware now, I am a fan of the American tradition known as Paleoconservatism. I realise you're not, but for both our sakes please recognize that I (1) don't believe William F Buckley & Goldwater are the true Prophets of Conservatism, and (2) I'm much more in favor of pragmatic solutions than ideological purity tests.

[Pants-of-dog]

Eh? When did I say that this is an example of restricting marriage? The point of the tests is so both parties are knowledgeable of any communicable diseases (STD or otherwise) that their fiancee has.

So, small government conservatives support the right of the state to know the medical history of individuals and broadcast that information to another individual regardless of their wishes.

How is that an example of small government? Supposedly "socialist" government like those in Canada do not demand this.

[hip hop bunny hop]

I must apologize to Pants-of-Dog; I thought you were debating me. I didn't realize you were speaking to this gentleman:



In the future I'll try not to to interrupt your debates with Mr. Strawman.

[Drlee]

However, as you should be aware now, I am a fan of the American tradition known as Paleoconservatism. I realise you're not, but for both our sakes please recognize that I (1) don't believe William F Buckley & Goldwater are the true Prophets of Conservatism, and (2) I'm much more in favor of pragmatic solutions than ideological purity tests.

Paleoconservative. An interesting term. It was coined in 1984 if I reacall.

So you are a Kirkian? Interesting.

Kirk said: "Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another." And: "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief."

Hugh eyeroll here. I should pause to note that Kirk was a frequent contributor to Buckley's National Review. FWIW.

BE what you want. Adapt whatever label you want. Your assertion "I'm much more in favor of pragmatic solutions than ideological purity tests" flies in the face of the very definition of Paleoconservatism. A distinction, (the insertion of the word Paleo) by the way, which I reject as little more than an extension of Southern Agrarianism. I would not, if I were you, be proud of a movement that sees John C. Calhoon as a prophet.

Enjoy your belief system which is more about exclusiveness than unity. The deal is Hop, that the word exclusive is about who is not a member not who is. Your train has already left the station. It left with the founding fathers in my opinion but if you prefer to be more modern I would assert that you will never have a white, Christian, strictly socially classed nation again on this real estate. We white males are no longer the majority. We have lots of clout and get some of the best seats at the ho-down but our power is transient. You may wish for Father Knows Best but that time is simply over. Welcome to the 21st century.

I want to say here to whoever may be watching this goat-rope that I believe that be best ideas of traditional conservatism inform our modern society quite well. I believe in a cautionary approach but that real conservatives are social libertarians and fiscal conservatives. More freedom and less debt. It can't be much simpler than that. And a real conservative should, IMO, embrace solutions leading to the ultimate achievement of that goal. We will not shrink government by whining about gay marriage or abortion. Furthermore smaller government is not preferable to a destroyed environment, unsafe food or weak defense. There is a balance. The founders knew it when they established the Public Health Service in 1798. The EPA is not the enemy of business. It is the enemy of dirty business that would place the pursuit of profit over the welfare of the people who own and live in the environment. The FDA is not the enemy of people who make drugs that fight disease. It is the enemy of people who make unsafe for would market poorly tested drugs. Both of these agencies are a direct result of uncontrolled business doing the wrong thing. And therein lies the tale. Both seek to conserve. One to conserve the place in which we all live and work and the other to conserve our health.

[EastCoastAmerican]

@ hip hop bunny hop:

You're in favor of using the power of the federal government to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples only.

Marriage between people of the same gender is legal in six states and on two Indian Reservations.

If federal law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, this will invalidate many existing marriages by overriding the decisions of state governments. Since married couples receive tax benefits (among other things), this change will make a lot of people very angry and feel violated by the federal government. Additionally, it will anger the congress members and voters of those six states who voted in favor of gay marriage: it's basically the federal government telling them that their votes don't matter.

Given all of this, how would you implement this change in a way that will have the least amount of impact and interference in the private lives of American citizens?

[Pants-of-dog]

I must apologize to Pants-of-Dog; I thought you were debating me. I didn't realize you were speaking to this gentleman:

....

In the future I'll try not to to interrupt your debates with Mr. Strawman.

I love it when people claim I am making a logical fallacy, but don't bother to explain how. I guess we are supposed to take your word for it that I made such a mistake, what with you being so smart and all.

Now, you were explaining how a small government has the duty to ensure that "the couple are knowledgeable of any communicable diseases (STD or otherwise) that their fiancee has."

How do they do that? By forcing couples to undergo medical testing?

Is the government privy to that knowledge? If so, do you think that a small government should have that knowledge? Why?

[hip hop bunny hop]

@ hip hop bunny hop:

You're in favor of using the power of the federal government to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples only.

Marriage between people of the same gender is legal in six states and on two Indian Reservations.

If federal law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, this will invalidate many existing marriages by overriding the decisions of state governments. Since married couples receive tax benefits (among other things), this change will make a lot of people very angry and feel violated by the federal government.

How would you implement this change in a way that will have the least amount of impact and minimal interference in the private lives of American citizens?

ECA; let's be clear, we're talking about the benefits of state recognized marriage. Further, recall that benefits such as same sex couples being able to visit one another in the hospital are available through means aside from marriage (livings wills, for example). So, what is this primarily about? It's about letting same sex couples recieve the same monetary benefits as opposite sex couples.

Now, why were these benefits instituted in the first place? Because, (1) married couples are more likely to reproduce, and (2) married couples make superior parents.

Which brings us to the following statement of yours, "Since married couples receive tax benefits (among other things), this change will make a lot of people very angry and feel violated by the federal government." What about the non-married tax payers, then? If the benefits of marriage aren't in place to benefit the social arrangement most conducive to children, why have material benefits for marriage at all? Why should the non-married subsidize married couples?

As a Conservative, granted of a different stripe than many other Conservatives, I feel non-married individuals should subsidize heterosexual marriages because I want my nation to prosper, and I don't want it to be dependent on immigration if it wishes to avoid a dramatic shrinking of the population. As homosexual couples are, by their very nature, infertile - I oppose giving them these benefits, as whether they're married or not will not affect their fertility or ability to raise children they can't have.

[EastCoastAmerican]

So your primary support of marriage is for the purposes of reproduction? What about infertile couples and those uninterested in having children? Regrettably, many children are born unplanned due to poor decisions and risky sexual behavior, so reinforcing "tradtional marriage" isn't going to dramatically change the nation's fertility rate. Sexual education and easy access to condoms and birth control are the better ways to combat this problem.

Several scientific surveys by non-political groups, such as the American Psychological Association, have concluded that homosexual couples are just as skilled as heterosexuals at child-rearing.

This is why I believe homosexuals should be able to adopt children. There are many children living in foster homes or orphanages, without loving parental figures. If a kind and loving gay couple adopts them, I think that our nation prospers by putting more children into nurturing environments.

I'd like to hear your views on other issues social conservatives wish to restrict on a nationwide level, such as flag-burning and pornography and the building of mosques.

[Drlee]

So, what is this primarily about? It's about letting same sex couples recieve the same monetary benefits as opposite sex couples.

Absolutely untrue. In case you haven't noticed there is such a thing as the marriage penalty. Many married couples 49% as a matter of fact pay more. Only in the case where the two tax payers earn very different amounts do you see the opposite. There are no other, as far as I can see, financial benefits to being married unless you might include health care and that is no certainty. So wrong as usual.

Now, why were these benefits instituted in the first place? Because, (1) married couples are more likely to reproduce, and (2) married couples make superior parents.

Nonsense. In 2007 40% of American children were born out of wedlock. So there goes that argument. It is an insignificant difference. In the past the number of children born out of wedlok was lower but in much of the world it has been higher for some time. As to your second homophobic comment typical of your general bigotry, as ECA said, many studies have shown that there is no difference in parenting skills between same-sex and straight couples. It is noteworthy that adoptive couples are evaluated for suitability, financial responsibility and parenting ability prior to being allowed to adopt. All a straight couple needs is a bottle of whiskey, Kenny G. (or if you prefer Merle Haggard) and the backseat of a Ford.

And it is a clean-sweep. Wrong on all counts:

As homosexual couples are, by their very nature, infertile - I oppose giving them these benefits, as whether they're married or not will not affect their fertility or ability to raise children they can't have.

Of course your bigoted ideas blind you to the fact that lesbians (who happen to be homosexual but I guess do not frighten you as much as the male variety) are potentially twice as fertile as any heterosexual couple as it is quite possible for them to both be carrying children at the same time! All they need is a few dollars for some frozen doctor sperm (maybe some of mine but then I digress) and they are on their way.