Early in the campaign, Rudy Giuliani was criticized for being a Liberal on social issues, and therefore, undeserving of the Republican nomination.  Likewise, Mitt Romney was accused of “flipping” his stand on abortion, albeit, in the right direction, and therefore untrustworthy as a true “social” conservative. Both candidates apparently lacking sufficient bonafides to carry forward the conservative banner, failed to secure endorsements from any of the nationally recognized leaders of social conservatism.  Since then, Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy and David Keene has endorsed Mitt Romney.  Both endorsements have been met with skepticism from the social conservative base.  Currently, Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, is enjoying a strong showing in Iowa.  The MSM is also backing him as the heir to “compassionate” conservatism espoused by President Bush.  However, the Club for Growth, the Cato Institute, and others have severely castigated the former Arkansas governor as a spendthrift, and therefore, not a “true” conservative. 

The latest polls from South Carolina show undecided Republicans outnumber the current leader, Mitt Romney 28% to 17%.  The Conservative Base of the Republican Party is dissatisfied, and undecided.  No single candidate satisfactorily embraces both Fiscal and Social Conservatism the way Ronald Reagan did.  Moreover, the countdown toward the Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries is less than 40 days!

What choice should “Social” conservatives make? 

Is there some rationale that would justify choosing one candidate over another, if we are forced to choose between Fiscal and Social conservative positions?

Here is my rationale for choosing Fiscal conservatives with moderate to liberal social leanings (e.g. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson) over Social conservatives with moderate to liberal fiscal attitudes (e.g. Mike Huckabee).

Social conservatives who are fiscally liberal will allow the Federal government to continue growing in size, and therefore, continue to increasingly regulate every aspect of our daily lives!  Our current President is known as a “Big Government” conservative.  (What an oxymoron!) 

Advancing social conservatism demands smaller government, especially the Federal Government.  The ACLU, NARAL, and other Liberal organizations would not be successful at blocking and overturning State and Local standards, if it were not for their ability to enlist the aid of the Federal Government on their behalf.  The Federal Government’s intrusion both Legislatively and Judicially interferes with State and Local standards of morality. 

Fiscal conservatives that successfully shrink the size of the Federal Government will inherently tip the balance back in favor of the States and local communities, empowering them to establish and maintain standards of morality that they desire.  This includes everything from abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research, etc.

Social conservatives, who abandon smaller government ideals, unwittingly render their fight for moral standards impotent.  On the other hand, Fiscal conservatives, by actively shrinking the size of government, inherently reinforce conservative social values by neutralizing the only tool secular progressives have ever successfully wielded against community standards:  the Federal Government.

Fiscal conservatives, who also commit to appointing strict constructionist judges, will achieve greater success in advancing the social conservative agenda, than any “compassionate” or “Big Government” conservative ever could!