Friday, April 10, 2009

Entitlement

A political party is a somewhat random conglomeration of different interests that pretend to unite in order to share influence with each other. So let's say your key issue is the second amendment, the right to keep assault rifles. The NRA by itself certainly has some influence and political power in itself but when they are also backed by corporate deregulationists, small government advocates, pro-lifers, NAMBLA or whoever that lobby becomes more powerful. To be sure those lobbies may not care much about hunting or handguns but their passive inclusion grants a degree of extra legitimacy.

In "America The Book" the Daily Show writers mock this a little saying to someone thinking of running for office "do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion." (108) I can not help but imagine that a lot of these political alliances are arbitrary, what does government spending have to do with the abortion? Nothing except that all intelligent people think exactly as you do on this and all other subjects.

I've sensed a degree of antagonism or at least unease from the Libertarian branch of the Republican/conservatives I know who in particular do not favor the joining with social conservatives. There are varying reasons for this ranging from being a member of NAMBLA to anarchist tendencies. I will not be arguing for or against it, but was interested in making a some what logical connection between the politics of morality and government programs.

For my discussion I am distinguishing between Christianity and social conservatives. Of course it must be recognized that in American and most of Western civilization Social conservatives follow some variation of something like Christianity. But I distinguish the two based upon their stated objective:

Christianity's purpose is to declare God's message of redemption through Jesus Christ, equipping believers to do His will and caring for the needy.

The purpose of the social conservative is to enforce a set of moral rules, punishing transgressors and rewarding adherents but with the purpose of social harmony.

The two might sometimes join sides as Christianity does believe part of God's will is that we avoid sin and a social conservative might regard the church structure of Christianity as an expedient to their goals, but they are not the same. This can be seen in that their are Muslim, Confucian, Buddhist, Communist and all other kinds of social conservatives who are actually opposed to Christianity.

All of that to say why social conservatives are allied with fiscal conservatives! In particular when it comes to welfare and similar programs there is a logic between the two because one of the tenants of most social conservatives is the importance of hard work, earning one's own way and being a PRODUCTIVE member to society. When the government seeks to provide for the needs of some of the population it undermines the ideal that moral citizens ought to pay their own way. A fiscal conservative might not care how a welfare state will effect the character of society but a social conservative can scarcely be thought to think of anything else. So the two can be seen to share some common interests.

No comments: