Thread: The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton

Originally Posted by Judy

Immigration in general could be argued as fiscal and social.

Immigration overall is a fiscal issue because it's an economic issue. People who don't like one group of people from one country or another because of their race, religion, culture, customs and so forth could argue social objections.

But illegal immigration is purely a numbers, economic and fiscal issue because they are here illegally outside of the numbers control system. An Irish illegal aliens is no different than a Mexican illegal alien. They're both illegal. The Irish illegal alien, the Mexican illegal alien are no different than a Chinese, Russian or African illegal alien. They're all here illegally outside the legal numbers established by Congress. Illegal aliens have a social impact on our society, no doubt about that, but that's not why they're illegal, they're illegal because they're here outside the immigration control limits set for economic and fiscal reasons.

Your first sentence is correct, but then you blow it by turning around and saying it's a purely numbers, economic and fiscal issue, when in fact it has both negative social and economical costs.

Honestly, I don't even know how our discussion came to this point unless it's just an attempt to clutter the thread with chatter to hide your contention that Republicans are social liberals.

Judy wrote:

Republicans are not just "conservative". We're Republicans, and that means social liberal, fiscal conservative. Social liberal means government stays out of personal lives, defends our civil and constitutional rights.

You don't speak for all Republicans and your definition doesn't accurately describe all Republicans. Many Republican voters such as myself consider ourselves social conservatives.

Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are contradictory. You can't want to expand government and make it cheaper, you can't force people to do things and call it freedom or equality and you can't create rights while suppressing established ones.

Social liberalism doesn't expand government, it limits it by keeping government out of our personal lives while defending civil and equal rights. Social liberalism doesn't force people to do anything, quite the opposite. Social liberalism defends rights, it doesn't create them, but it does suppress rights people thought they had but didn't really, like owning slaves and beating your wife, segregated schools and businesses, race and gender discrimination in the work place and society, discrimination against the disabled, worker abuses, yes, Republicans "suppressed" all that. In later years, Democrats helped as well.

In my post, 'm referring to the difference between legal and illegal immigration. On immigration, I'm referring to legal immigration and agree that it has both fiscal and social connotations and that's what I said. Illegal immigration is different because it's illegal, outside of the law, beyond the numbers established by Congress and occurs without the vetting and evaluations established by law for legal entry, so it bypasses social issues addressed by the law. That's why I say it's only fiscal and by the numbers, because it doesn't matter under the law whether you're a healthy disease free person or one infested with all types of disease, what race you are, what country you're from, what religion you observe, what skills you have, how many languages you speak, how bad or how wonderful you may be, if you're here illegally, the law says you are illegal and to be deported. That means when it comes to illegal immigration, it's purely a fiscal, economic and numbers issue, because that's the law and rightly so. When you enter legally under our legal immigration system, both the fiscal and social issues are addressed as part of the process of legal entry, and rightly so.

I probably should have used the term legal immigration instead of just immigration in my post. I'll change that so it doesn't confuse people.

For those who don't know, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 and neutral on the issue of abortion for 126 years, until 1980 when Ronald Reagan ran for President. That was the first time the issue of Pro-Life advocacy was part of the Republican National Platform. Until then, the platform was neutral on the issue or Pro-Choice, supporting the rights of pregnant girls and women who wanted to have a baby as well as those who didn't.

Judy wrote:

Social liberalism doesn't expand government, it limits it by keeping government out of our personal lives while defending civil and equal rights. Social liberalism doesn't force people to do anything, quite the opposite. Social liberalism defends rights, it doesn't create them, but it does suppress rights people thought they had but didn't really, like owning slaves and beating your wife, segregated schools and businesses, race and gender discrimination in the work place and society, discrimination against the disabled, worker abuses, yes, Republicans "suppressed" all that. In later years, Democrats helped as well.

You're wrong. You can't put "social liberalism" in a tidy little box to only fit a personal agenda. For the true meaning it must be expanded.

Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are contradictory. You can't want to expand government and make it cheaper, you can't force people to do things and call it freedom or equality and you can't create rights while suppressing established ones.

Fiscal (small government) conservatives are not social liberals.

Conservatism is not status quo ante but a belief that a free person in a free society is the best engine for freedom for all people, for economic growth, enabling the protection of rights by not infringing on them and allowing people to learn their life lessons by trial and error. Unfortunately due to it's lack of structure it's easily open to atrophy and dissolution.

Social liberals view society as a field in which fairness does not exist but must be imposed. Where people are suppressed and not free to pick themselves up but need to be picked up and supported by others. It's a society where others have "too much" and must be compelled to provide for others. It's a Utopian vision of society, leveling, a construct. Social liberalism leverages "social justice", redistribution of wealth (property) and public services as a means to an end.

Hmmmm. Well, that's all news to me.