Fiscal or social?

Why fiscal conservatism trumps social conservatism.

I saw this at Ace's place, (and HotAir and WND!) and got my brain jogged (again) about something I've been thinking about for a long time, and that's the GOP's 'strangeness' about social issues vs fiscal issues.

If you haven't been living under a rock, there is controversy at this year's CPAC convention; a pro-homosexual group (GOProud) was allowed to co-sponsor the event (which is a big deal!). One attendee decided to pull out of the conference in protest; others threatened, but ultimately attended. Then I hear reports that a conservative speaker was booed off the stage after making snide comments about CPAC's decision to invite GOProud to the conference.

All of this is interesting in a couple of ways. First, it shows that as new blood is infused into the GOP, it becomes more openly tolerant of homosexuals (dare I say, more libertarian?!). Second, it leads one to ponder which is more important .... social or fiscal conservatism. I would contend it is the latter, and it is the GOP that is having to sleep in the bed it has made for itself.

If you look at the byzantine financial structure of this country, it's hard to find a place to start when you think about reining in spending. I think that's the wrong place to start. The place to start is to look at the money supply that the government has to spend ..... government has too much, and only ever wants more. That is the nature of governments ... all governments.

And the GOP gets involved in social issues because of the fiscal ramifications.

Take marriage. Republicans (not conservatives) are all the time crowing 'The government should dictate that marriage is between a man and a woman' and 'We should pass a constitutional amendment outlawing gays from marrying', all of which are just versions of 'Teh gayz, teh gayz, ZOMG teh gayz!'. And that's the problem - the government is already involved up to it's eyeballs, and it's the GOP's fault.

You see, if there were not financial benefits to being married, there would not be a great rush to have gays be allowed to get married. And it just so happens that a lot of the financial benefits are predicated on whether you're married. And right now, only heterosexual couples can marry (though that's changing). And when the government says 'Your group can marry and get financial benefit but your group can't', then all the folks in the 'you can't' group start agitating to be recognized (and rightfully so). And which political party has lobbied hardest to provide the 'marriage benefit' regarding federal taxes? The GOP.

I'll draw a parallel from a different area. I participated in Vox Day's online class, reading America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. One of the comments I made during that study is that so much of the financial industry is devoted, not to producing anything valuable, but simply on making money.

The same is true of our political system. So much of the day-to-day is spent divying up the federal pie. The problem is, the government doesn't have a pie of it's own, it takes from you and I to get their pie. So they can give it to someone else. So what if the federal pie got smaller and smaller and smaller?

Well, if there was no financial benefit to being married, marriage would start gravitating toward what it's best at - maintaining social order (and the part administered by government only providing an equitable distribution of assets if the marriage doesn't work out). So, if the government cannot bestow benefits to married individuals, why should it matter that two gay gentlemen get married in the Church of the Holy Besiality? But what about social security benefits, dude? There's another place the government has stuck it's nose where it doesn't belong. In an economically perfect world, I would get all the taxes paid in my name (not to mention health insurance premiums) paid to me as a wage, for me to spend how I see fit. And if I provide good stewardship of my money, I can decide to whom it goes at the end of my life, rather than begging the government to recognize my 'partner'. The government should not be in the business of providing 'social' security at all.

So, GOP ...... fix the money part (and by 'fix', I mean really fix it, not restructure it) and the social part takes care of itself.

pm