Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This came up in the talk page over conservative novels. I view myself as a conservative: supporting a small, minimal government, one large enough to have courts, roads and a military. I value a commitment to a small government that is not intrusive over most other things. I view Ayn Rand, despite her atheism and shrill denunciation (in the same style as Stalin of her homeland) of the conservative movement as a valuable voice in defining economic conservatism. However, it seems that what is more valued is social conservatism here at CP. It feels that people feel that it's more important to have social conservative views than economic ones. As someone who falls closer to the middle on social issues (I really don't care what people do in the bedrooms as long as I don't have to hear about it), I've been wondering if CP is the place for me. So, is Conservapedia's focus on social or economic conservatism? Or is there room here for both of us? ArnoldFriend 07:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Social conservatism is a way of restricting freedom, which this site seems to vehemently oppose. Economic conservatism is reasonable during times of expansion, but as the aftermath of the Great Depression proved, the best way to get out of a hole is to fill it with money. That's my two cents. AlanR 08:26, 28 February 2010 (EST)

One semi-related question: would you agree that it is easier to understand social issues than it is to understand economic issues? Therefore those with no opinion is higher for economic issues than for social issues, and hence it is 'more important' to be an economic conservative as it is less common. And a question on social conservatism (because I can't work out how to add debate topics, nor find a place which tells me how to): What is the typical conservative view of those who refuse to consider or think about moral questions (and hence have no opinion)? - JamesCA, 5th July 2011

I would say social conservatism. In my opinion, the moral decay of America is worse than the economic decay, and may even contribute to the economic decay. After all, if people mess up their lives, they're more likely to need government help, which results in more entitlement programs, which results in more taxes and more spending, bla bla bla...get my drift? Irresponsible citizens mean irresponsible government, which means the society decays at a whole. Of course, it's not like the government can make anybody moral; the best it can do is provide good laws, stand back, and wait for God to work. ;)
As for you, AlanR, I understand where your argument of "social conservatism restricts freedom" comes from. After all, banning gay marriages and abortions results in less freedom than allowing them, right? But the thing is, banning gay marriages and abortions protects the sacred institution of marriage and the right to life of unborn children. It's a matter of protecting the rights to do what is considered good and honorable, while restricting the rights to do wrong things. The idea of social conservatism is to commend those who do right and to punish those who do wrong. Biblically speaking, it's in accordance with Romans 13.
But of course, economic conservatism is also important. We need holders of elected offices who will be careful stewards of the American people's money. Still, for me, social is more important. The stopping of infanticide should be more important than the prevention of wasteful spending, for what is it if a man gains the whole world but loses his soul?
(Sorry if I overused the Bible. Well, OK. I'm not actually sorry. Sue me.) --StoryMaker 20:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
Personal tools