Ok, so I keep hearing that conservatism is a “three-legged stool”. Those legs are social, fiscal and national security or defense conservatism. Everyone knows that a three-legged stool is supposed to be more stable because if one leg is shorter than the others, it still doesn’t wobble. Unfortunately, you can only take that so far. True, if one leg is slightly shorter, the stool will tilt a bit but it won’t topple over. However, if you let one leg get considerably shorter than the other two, you’ve got a real problem. Unless you enjoy landing on the floor with a thud. The way I see it, that’s exactly the problem the Republican party has got. We are supposed to be the party of conservatism, but lately, we’ve only been really concerned with two of our legs!

For the last several years, the party has been consumed with national security. That’s perfectly natural. We were attacked on our own soil after years of ignoring the threat. It’s about time we focused on security. No one (well, no conservative, anyway) can argue about that.

We’ve also seen a focus on fiscal issues. After eight years of Clinton in the White House, there was obviously some work to be done there as well. The Bush tax cuts were necessary and welcome. Unfortunately, the party’s fiscal leg took a bit of a beating in Congress with an inordinate amount of spending. One of my biggest disappointments with Bush was his seeming inability to find his veto pen! Still, ever since Reagan the ficons have gained power steadily in the party power machine.  That wouldn’t be a bad thing, in and of itself, except that it seems many of them are moderates, at best, on social issues. They are perfectly happy to push aside issues of life, marriage and family in exchange for some economic boon, whether real or perceived.

Social conservatives have been accused of being “single issue” voters, not only by the liberals but by members of our own party. I don’t doubt that some people are just that, but the vast majority of social conservatives would love to sit firmly on all three legs of our stool. Isn’t it about time we were given that chance? Why does one “leg” have to be sacrificed for the other two? If there’s a problem with the balance, the answer isn’t to keep cutting some off on one of the legs. The answer is to find something to prop up the shorter one.  I don’t know about you all, but I’m getting real tired of sitting on the floor.