FreedomTalks

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council wrote the following on his blog.

“In recruiting candidates to run for office the Democrats look for people who are appealing to social conservative voters. If the candidates don’t fit that pro-life/pro-marriage mold, the Democrats instruct them to mask their more radical ideas. Democratic strategists clearly see the value of “values voters” even as some conservative leaders go temporarily blind.”

Let us be clear, here. There is a difference between being a “values voter” who supports lower taxes, less government and more individual freedom and a “values voter” who supports using the federal government to enforce “values legislation.”

While I cannot speak directly for Chairman Armey, as a social and fiscal conservative myself, I can say that just because you support traditional family values you should not push legislation that expands the federal government in order to push your values on others.

This is a discussion that the conservative movement needs to have.

Certainly protecting innocent life and other “values” issues are important, but we must do so in a manner that respects the Constitutional framework of separation of powers, federalism and judicial restraint.

I encourage conservatives to think about the proper relationship between the state and the individual, as it relates to religion and morality. Most conservatives realize that a President Hillary Clinton would use the same federal power that some “values voters” are now comfortable with to oppose the “values agenda” in the future.

This is why FreedomWorks and Dick Armey believe that we have to oppose big-government solutions to moral and social problems.

  

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 31st, 2006 at 2:21 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.