Ambiguity May, or May Not Be The Problem

Any candidate claiming to be “fiscally conservative and socially moderate” is a walking talking contradiction. It’s so ambiguous it’s laughable. For example, does this mean he feels the pain of the entitlement class, yet is reluctant to spend more of the taxpayer’s money on entitlements, or does it mean he’s fiscally conservative, that is until he feels the pain of the entitlement class, at which time he’s willing to spend the taxpayer’s money on entitlements?

 The key word in this bogus line of reasoning is moderate. This is the “I can have my cake and eat it too”, word, the “I can get out of jail free”, card. To incorporate the word moderate into politics means to sit on the political fence; one day you jump off on the left side, another day you get to jump off on the right side, depending of course, which way the political wind is blowing on any given day. To be a moderate is to stand for nothing; one can’t make a conservative decision in politics then divorce themselves from the liberal causality of that decision, and vice versa. There is no moderate causality in politics. Therefore, to claim one is a moderate is an oxymoron. It means not having to declare weather you’re liberal or conservative (how convenient).

 Is the glass half full or half empty? Neither, it’s moderately full, when not empty of course. Is it right or wrong to collect taxes at the point of a gun? Neither, coercion is moderation we can live with, albeit it helps having the gun. Malfeasance can become acceptable too, in moderation of course. The next thing you know politicians will be excused for being moderately promiscuous.

 Moderates cost conservatives the election in 2008. It brought us the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both of whom need to go the way of the dinosaur, politically speaking. Consider this, Adolf Hitler was a moderate fascist and Joseph Stalin was a moderate communist. Here in this country, you’re either liberal or conservative. So stop the foolishness; we are no longer beguiled by such sophistry.

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. The politician who says he is both fiscally and socially conservative is really saying that he is for lots of freedom in the economic sphere but is also for major government intervention in the “social” sphere.

    In contrast, the politician who says he is “fiscally conservative and socially moderate” is saying that he is for lots of freedom in the economic sphere and for a moderate amount in the social sphere. So, he is actually more consistent in his thinking than the all-round conservative.

    The flaw is with conservatism itself for trying to encapsulate a contradiction, not with the “social moderate” for groping with a way to escape that contradiction.

    McCain is different. The problem with him is that he is “fiscally moderate” too: basically an all-round moderate who thinks its fine to violate rights a little bit in any area, as long as we do it in small enough increments to gain consensus. Having a president like McCain would be worse than having someone like Obama in place, because he would probably pass some health-care “compromise”.

    On the other hand, the typical “fiscally conservative” and “socially moderate” (better still “socially liberal”) is the type of politician I would root for.

    • “The politician who says he is both fiscally and socially conservative is really saying that he is for lots of freedom in the economic sphere but is also for major government intervention in the “social” sphere.”

      This statement is incorrect. Conservatives stand for less government intervention not more, smaller government not larger. “Major government intervention in the “social” sphere”. This would mean more entitlement spending, more regulation of industry, more loss of economic and personal freedom, more government intervention into the everyday lives of the citizenry. This has never been the platform of conservatives. Any canidate who claims to be conservative, yet advocates for “Major government intervention in the “social” sphere” is a fraud. Thanks for your imput.

  2. U.S. Conservatives want to deny women the right to abortion, they want to deny gay couples certain basic procedural rights, they want to deny foreigners the right to to freely enter the U.S. at the invitation of people here.

    When a politician says he is “socially moderate”, he means he is not very serious about violating rights in those domains.

    • We are a nation of laws. Each of your concerns are addressed by existing law. With the looming destruction of our economy, the pending collapse of our currency, a failed forgein policy with two unwinnable wars draining the human and fiscal resources of our country, a tyrannical government poised to nationalize health care, banks, and industry in an effort to deliver us into Democratic Socialism, tell me, why I should care about gays and abortion activists? We have existing immigration laws, I suggest you read them. If there remains a question about what pertains to a citizens rights, I suggest you read the constitution, especially the part that delineates our rights as citizens of this country. Thanks for your comments.

    • “When a politician says he is “socially moderate”, he means he is not very serious about violating rights in those domains.” A woman has a right to choose to abort or not, that is her right. The rest of what you advocate is not a right!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: