(no subject)

[somedaybitch]

over at Cato, there's an interesting piece on the Supreme Court and Individual Rights. it blows some commonly held perceptions about liberal vs conservative ruling patterns totally out of the water.

Conservative justices also typically vote to limit the government's ability to regulate election-related speech, while liberal justices are willing to uphold virtually any regulation in the name of "campaign finance reform." In Davis v. Federal Election Commission, decided the same day as Heller, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court's conservatives, reaffirmed the "fundamental nature of the right to spend personal funds for campaign speech." The dissenters argued that "in the context of elections . . . limiting the quantity of speech" is perfectly acceptable.

and then there was this:

The Fifth Amendment's protection of property rights presents, if anything, an even starker example of greater commitment to individual rights by the conservative majority. In the infamous Kelo v. New London, the Court's liberal justices, joined by Justice Kennedy, held that the government may take an individual's property and turn it over to a private party for commercial use. The four conservative dissenters argued that such actions violate the Fifth Amendment's requirement that government takings be for "public use."

i think a LOT of people tend to forget that political conservative and religious conservative are not the same thing. a true political conservative wants less government, not more; and while there are certainly plenty of religious conservatives that are *also* political conservatives, the two are not synonymous.

Comments

[adafrog.livejournal.com]

Good point.

[flouritephoenix.livejournal.com]

I think the recent administration has made this issue much more confusing, as they're not very politically conservative, and very socially conservative. (I hesitate to use "religiously", as not all religions are socially conservative, and as conservative actually just means that opposing change, it necessitates the question, "Change from what?"

I really don't understand why social conservatism ever became linked up with fiscal conservatism. Or why Christian religious conservatism would be linked up with fiscal conservatism, what with all Jesus had to say about the poor.

People confuse me.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

the administration has, or the press has, because i think the distinction is crucial.

I really don't understand why social conservatism ever became linked up with fiscal conservatism. Or why Christian religious conservatism would be linked up with fiscal conservatism, what with all Jesus had to say about the poor.

i would imagine it's because the VAST majority of the working press are liberal and seem disinterested or disinclined to actually do their jobs well when reporting on conservatives and conservative "issues". somewhere along the line, and i believe it was made the worst during Bush's elections, the press decided to equate "religious conservatives" and "social conservatives" with "Republicans" specifically and "political conservatives" more broadly, in order to scare people. i find that behavior reprehensible.

a true conservative recognizes that small government and fiscal prudence defacto equates to the government not being in people's business, because in order to poke about in people's private lives you need money and entity to do it.

[flouritephoenix.livejournal.com]

I don't think you can blame the press for the fact that Bush took a very long time to meet a money-spending bill that he didn't sign. Also with extending the power of the government through Homeland Security. He likes himself some all-powerful large government. I don't.

I also think that you need to date back the equating of the religious right with the political right back to Regan getting in bed with the "Christian" leaders of his day.

It's been a while since the main discourse of politics was how fiscal matters could assist with the social welfare of the people. I'm too young to remember it, if it ever happened.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i'm not talking about a specificity of action, i'm talking to a leadup to both elections that was equating religious conservativism with being a Republican or a "neo-con".

[arthurfrdent.livejournal.com]

what, you mean conservatism isn't an absolute? :eyeroll:

I'm of the opinion that we are not served at all by these definitions... You basic ultra lefty is just as conservative as an ultra righty, just about different things [IMHO natch]

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

yep.