So, the TEA Party is a bunch of fiscal conservative, social libertarians who can’t get along with social conservatives? Think again – from Inside Catholic:
…True, there are many conservatives who believe that the most pressing moral issues of our day — such as abortion, marriage, and education — must be addressed at the federal level. I used to be one of them. Libertarian constitutionalists like Paul, however, have long argued that these matters are best addressed by state and local governments. It is a subsidiarist position aimed at restoring the proper balance between local and national rights and duties, while the federal government is restricted by the Constitution. Thus the practical aim of the pro-life movement coincides with what ought to be the philosophical aim of the Tea Party: to overturn Roe v. Wade as an unconstitutional decision and return the legislation of abortion to the states.
The same may be said for any number of similar issues. Consider, for instance, the debacle of Proposition 8 in California, which voters approved by a large majority in order to ban same-sex marriage. The California courts moved promptly to strike down the will of the people. It seems highly unlikely that principled libertarians in the Tea Party movement would reject the outcome of a legitimate democratic process and opt instead for fiat rule from the bench…
Those of you unfamiliar with Catholic social teaching might be unfamiliar with the term “subsidiarist” – it comes from “subsidiarity” which is a core, Catholic belief about how society should be governed. As staunch as we are about traditional marriage, a adamant as we are on the subject of abortion, as insistent as we are about school choice, the bottom line for our social, economic and political belief is that power should reside as far down the ladder as possible. We believe that it should “subside” first with the individual, second with the family, third with the local community, fourth with the several States, and only dead last with the federal government.
Is there a libertarian who is going to insist upon imposing gay marriage by judicial fiat? Not at all – in fact, to demand a judicial imposition of anything except enforcement of voluntary contracts is pretty much out of bounds for any libertarian. And no social conservative in his right mind is going to demand federal action to, say, clean up the immorality of a place like San Francisco. We know our job is to convert such pagan strongholds – and then allow the growing wisdom of the local people re-adjust law and custom in accordance with truth.
While the ultimate desired outcome between libertarians and social conservatives might, at times, be quite different, the methods of obtaining the outcomes are the same: individual liberty and strictly limited, constitutional government. This is why I said some time ago that I would, indeed, back a libertarian advocate of gay marriage against any statist, liberal Democrat in a liberal district – my desire is to preserve and extend freedom because in such an arena I am confident that Truth will eventually rule. A libertarian who disagrees with me will give me my chance (and I will be ok with my libertarian friend/opponent continuing to argue against my view in the public square). On the other hand, a liberal-fascist merely wants to permanently shut me down.
The TEA Party is made up of stalwart, American patriots – men and women who claim their proper descent from Washington, Jefferson and Adams. Not by blood, but by spirit and learning they have become the children of our Revolutionary forefathers. Just like those forefathers, there will be the endless debate about the best means to the end – but no argument that the end worked for is liberty. Try as they might to split the forces of Revolution, the left simply cannot convince the broad majority that social conservatives and libertarians should be enemies – we know allies when we see them, and we know from the start that allies don’t necessarily agree all the time.
Blogs For Victory 