Lets Not Put Our Eggs In One Basket
By Steven Osborne | Thursday, December 2nd, 2010 | Catch-All, Policy, PoliticsThere is an old saying; don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Obviously if one puts all of his eggs in one basket and that basket is dropped then all of the eggs could be lost. This is something we as conservatives ought to remember as we now have our hands on the wheel of the ship of state.
A few days ago Brian Kirwin correctly pointed out that if the Republican Party drops the ball on the economy then they can get thrown out just as quickly as the Democrats did. Unfortunately, some have taken that line of thinking to the extreme and have suggested that we focus only on fiscal issues. This would be unwise for several reasons:
1) Political risk: There is no guarantee that fiscal issues will be on the front burner in 2012. It would be wise for conservatives to have a range of accomplishments in various fields including fiscal, social, and national security.
2) Ignoring Connection of Issues: One factor that is all too often overlooked in politics is the connection that issues have with one another. For instance, it is unlikely that we will ever eliminate the welfare state with the current trajectory of the institution of marriage (i.e. more divorce, breakdown of the family unit).
A recent Rasmussen poll showed that voters still blame former President Bush for the current state of the economy more than they blame President Obama. Yet the President’s party still suffered significant losses in the House and Senate, not to mention in the various states. While there is general consensus that the President has not turned the tide of the economic mess, I do not believe that this was the only factor in the 2010 midterms.
The American people certainly had the economy at the forefront of their minds, but this election was not about one specific issue or even one set of issues. Rather it was a whole host of issues interconnecting with one another. The American people dug deeper and questioned more than just how much President Obama got done; they questioned his ideology and philosophy of government.
The TEA Party certainly contributed to this. I am personally gratified to hear people talking about Constitutional issues that ordinarily never entered the public discourse.
However, most TEA Party members appear to understand that fiscal issues are interconnected with other fields of policy. A national suvey of voters conducted on November 2 found that Reducing Spending and Restoring Moral Values were roughly equal priorities among TEA Party members. I think it is safe to say that a majority of Americans would like to see us do both of those things.
It does not make sense for us to compartmentalize the issues. Instead we should present a well rounded philosophy of government that is rooted in our beliefs concerning the role of government, fiscal responsibility, and respect for the laws of nature and nature’s God.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
5 Responses to "Lets Not Put Our Eggs In One Basket"
Although moral values are obviously important to society, I do not think the Federal government is the place to legislate it. It didn’t even work for the Romans. Isn’t that exactly what the leftists have used the government to do: to force Their morality and values on everyone else. More latitude to state and local governance is the best way to get agreement on “community” values. People presumably locate themselves in communities they find at least somewhat agreeable. What the Federal government should do is simply protect citizens from any local abuse of constitutional protections; that is, act as umpire rather than involve itself as busybody, scold or Gestapo. And it should stop punishing married people with weird tax penalties.
Great post. Could not agree more.
agree. we should also visit our Foreign Policy which currently requires an unsustainable military footprint that we cannot afford.
also agree with valentinus, get the Feds out of morality and functions that should be done at the state or local level (i.e. education)
I am all in favor of reconciling fiscal and social issues in the context of limited government based on constitutional principals. Now could someone explain which clause in the Constitution delegates to either federal or local government the authority to regulate intimate relationships between consenting adults, including how they choose to label their relationship or their ability to serve in the armed forces while engaged in a relationship? I’ve read the Constitution several times and even the 10th amendment reserves those rights to the people themselves, not the various levels of government.
WoodbridgeVa,
You will have to look to the Founders for the answer to that. Homosexuality was generally illegal, and many places still have sodomy laws on the books. An officer was discharged from Washington’s army during the American Revoltion due to having committed sodomy. Did the Founders contradict the Constitution when they upheld sodomy laws after it was written?
As far as marriage is concerned, neither the state or the federal governments have the authority to change the definition of what constitutes a marriage. The gender roles in marriage were set long before the federal or state governments came into existence. The states have the authority to administer legal proceedings regarding marriage.
Leave your response