Jun 28 2009
Inglis: “Lose the Stinking Rot of Self-righteousness”
Uh-oh. This is going to put the Bible thumpers in a tizzy.
South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis made a name for himself in the late 1990s as one of Bill Clinton’s most zealous pursuers, an impeachment “manager” who attacked the moral failings of the president with a gusto that earned him a devoted following in the staunchly conservative “Upstate” of conservative South Carolina.
But with his governor now felled by similar temptations, Inglis sees an opening for the Republican Party, a chance to “lose the stinking rot of self-righteousness” and “to understand we are all in need of some grace.”
I don’t disagree with Inglis’s comment. The Republican Party throughout the Bush years allowed social conservatism to define them. They threw fiscal responsibility right out the window, which makes it all the more amusing to watch them preach about it as Obamination spends us into oblivion. Instead they railed and hollared about morality and that is why they get slammed so hard by the media when one of them don’t live up to the moral pedestal they have put themselves on. Sure, there is a leftward bias in the mainstream media. I don’t deny that, but Republicans have branded their party as the party of traditional family values so when they screw up, like Mark Sanford and Diaper Dave Vitter and Mark Foley, etc they get thrown into the frying pan.
The GOP should put the social cons on the backburner for now and get back to their fiscally conservative roots if they are to win over the trust of the American people to put them back in control of Congress. That’s not to say that social conservatives can’t have a home within the Republican Party, but they can’t have 90% of the seats at the table anymore. That shift is what drove away people like me who used to support Republican candidates that truly believed in the idea of personal freedom, responsibility, and limited government, not the ones who falsely preach morality and then try to use their power in government to force it down our throats. I think that is what Inglis is getting at.
Bible thumper?? Really? What the heck is a “Bible thumper”? Do you mean an Evangelical? If so, why try and use a derogatory term? Why don’t you just call me and other social conservatives a poopy-head if you think name calling helps you make an argument?
Some other questions:
How did the Republican Party during the Bush years allow social conservatives to define them? My impression (a subjective opinion) was that the Iraq War and Terrorism were the dominant themes during 2000-2006 (year R’s lost Congress)
What table of political power did social conservatives have 90% of the seats? Are you saying fiscally irresponsible but socially conservatives were in charge of House leadership, Senate Leadership, Bush cabinet, majority of Republican Governors, State Legislatures, …?? What am I missing?
Which politicians were falsely preaching morality and trying to use their power in government to force it (I assume the “it” refers to this morality the politician was preaching about?) down our throats?
I am truly interested in hearing what someone who is a lot more knowledgeable about politics has to say on this. Maybe I am just not remembering well.
Anyway, I would bet that most true fiscal conservatives, lesser government folks are socially conservative as well. Which politicians that are socially liberal are real fiscal conservative, smaller government folks?
Again, I am truly interested in hearing what politicians you think marketed themselves as the social liberal, fiscal conservative type. For example, the ones that leap to mind are Schwarzenegger and Giuliani. Are there a lot of others that I am having a “senior moment” on, and not remembering?
Another point is that if I don’t always live up to my ideals, what I am striving for, it does not mean I am a hypocrite if I know that my failure is wrong. My failure would not discredit the ideal I am trying to live up to.
I think that abortion is morally wrong, that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that out of wedlock births is one of the key causal factors in a whole host of social ills. I am a social conservative and very much a fiscal conservative. I guess you would describe me as a Bible thumper, but I don’t think I’m in a tizzy.
Finally, I agree that the key unifying factor for conservatives is getting our fiscal bonafides in order.
Grace is, in fact, ALL that we have.
This is not a question of social conservatism over fiscal conservatism. It is a matter of honesty versus dishonesty. Trust versus distrust. Honor, integrity and commitment versus relativism. Simply put: it is a question of right versus wrong.
It is irrelevant whether one is a social conservative, a “Bible-thumper in a tizzy,” or an agnostic who believes that honesty and integrity matters. When elected officials deliberately deceive us and abuse the power of their office, they are wrong and no longer deserving of the trust of the people.
WJ, a Bible thumper is someone like former State Rep Scott Talley who introduced a bill last year to ban lap dances in the State of South Carolina because of how “immoral” they are.
As to social conservatism having the bulk of the seats at the table, that’s easy. The Bush administration and his Congress completely destroyed the Republican brand when they threw fiscal responsibility out the window and decided they would be the party of family values and “morality.” They preached about limited government in the lives of the people, but that never stopped them from introducing Constitutional amendments to define marriage and strip flag burning as a protected freedom of expression and mandates for abstinence only education. While all that was going on they spent and spent and spent on an unnecessary war of choice and expanding the Federal government faster than any President since LBJ (No Child Left Behind, MediCare Part D). When he finally did pick up his veto pen it was stop the Federal funding of embryonic stem cells. Now I actually agreed with that veto, but not for the reasons he did it. It should have been vetoed on the grounds of it being unconstitutional spending. He vetoed it to appease the pro-lifers who felt it was as bad as having an abortion.
The only bone Bush through to fiscal conservatives were his tax cuts, but he mucked that up with his astronomical increases in Federal spending, increasing the debt. He took 200 years worth of national debt and doubled it in just eight. So like I said, 90 seats at the table for the social conservatives, 10 for the fiscal conservatives, jack shit for limited government.
All of this is what brought about the Democrats sweep in 2006 and 2008: out of control spending, a botched and unneeded war, and preaching to be the moral authorities as Republican after Republican succumbed to scandal after immoral scandal.
WJ:
Teach your children your morality but don’t ask the government to legislate your morality. That is true conservatism. And, as to small government – that is one that stays out of the private lives of its citizens – not that horsecrap interference with personal choice you would shovel off on the rest of society.
This is no ‘christian’ nation (Christ said His kingdom is no part of the world). That fact should be blatantly obvious if you have ever driven in very heavy traffic anywhere in the US.
Republican/Democrat: both groups bend over for corporate interests.