A frequent mantra from talk-show callers, this statement is often followed by “And that’s why I can’t vote for Santorum” or “That’s why I support Ron Paul.”
 

The proclamation is usually delivered in a measured tone, calculated to convey how very reasonable and rational the speaker is:
 
“Yes, as an independent thinker I’ve carefully considered past and present socio-economic trends and sagely concluded that conservatism is definitely called for in fiscal matters, but when it comes to morals well, that’s personal, whatever works for you.”
 
The glaring problem with this theory is that, all historical evidence to the contrary, it assumes a dualistic view of human nature. It says we’re able to behave one way in this area of our lives and the opposite way in this area. That we can be totally unfettered socially, yet totally disciplined in economic matters.
 
But if we’re generally freewheeling when it comes to our personal lifestyle choices, how do we magically develop restraint or responsibility in fiscal matters?
 
We don’t. As our friends across the pond are slowly, and painfully, realizing.
 

Two recent articles in the UK Telegraph give evidence that the British government is gradually waking up to the fact that single parent homes, particularly single mother homes, may not be the best living arrangement for today’s youth.
 
First, a study done in the wake of last summer’s London riots found that “troubled” youth tend to come from families headed by a single mom.
 

The issue has now quickly risen up the Prime Minister’s agenda and Downing Street aides believe that family breakdown is one of the most urgent problems facing Britain. ..
 
… Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, said: “These troubled families are in total breakdown.
 
“The absence of a positive father figure is a huge problem and often the fathers who are present have severe drug and alcohol addictions and are not working.
 
“Clearly we want to work towards a situation where the fathers in these families provide stability, which means getting them back to work, so they can bring in money and be a positive role model to their children.”

Leave it to the nanny state to waste money learning what their grandparents could have told them for free. And of course the “fix” for broken families, as is always the case with big government, is more… altogether now -–> “taxpayer dollars” ~

Last year, David Cameron announced plans for a network of “family troubleshooters” who could be paid thousands of pounds to turn around the problem families.
The new troubleshooters – who are a mixture of charity, council and private sector workers – will receive almost £450 million in taxpayers’ money to help 120,000 troubled families.

[Source: The 72,000 problem families with no father and no male role model]

 
Yes. Social liberalism inevitably leads to fiscal liberalism.
 
Another British (presumably tax-payer funded) study, the “Social Justice Strategy Paper” found that: Marriage is particularly good for children 😯

Children who have experienced the breakdown of their parents’ relationship are “more likely to have poor cognitive development and education and employment outcomes than those who have lived with both birth parents.”
 
“Outcomes” are better for children when parents stay together, the paper says. Research shows that about one in three cohabiting couples splits up before a child’s fifth birthday, compared with one in 10 married couples.
 
 
“This Government believes marriage often provides an excellent environment in which to bring up children,” it says. “The Government is clear that marriage should be supported.”

[Source: “Marriage is best for raising children, Government says”]

 
Amazing. “The Government” is finally acknowledging what used to called “common sense.”

~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeffrey Bell, author of The Case for Polarized Politics: Why America Needs Social Conservatism, recently spoke at the Heritage Foundation on the false dichotomy of social-fiscal issues [Well worth the 45 minutes to listen; Bell explains the history behind the mistaken belief that morality doesn’t matter. Video: HERE] ~

“Social conservatism is inspirational. It is people who sense that there is just something out there that if they could just keep from being overwhelmed by the culture, that they could live better lives. That it would be better for [children] growing up if there were a husband and a wife in the home.”
 
Liberals want people to believe that the conservative movement is a problem for today’s society. In reality, social conservatism is the solution to societal breakdown.

 
The more a society distances itself from social conservatism the higher the financial costs to that society. Which leads to more bureaucracy, more taxing, more spending and out-of-control government.
 
Further, as Heritage reminds us “it is important to remember that social issues are central to preserving the Principles of the Founding.”
 

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
 
~ John Adams ~