The first part of this discussion of economic and social conservatives concluded with the statement that, above all, conservatives must make immediate progress on the economic front. We are in grave danger of being overwhelmed by our rapidly expanding welfare state. As the crisis deepens because of government interference in America’s economy, liberals - both Democrat and Republican - call for the government to take even greater control.

So, what bearing does this have on the candidates we should support?

Electing candidates who are socially conservative and economically liberal will not stop America’s deadly plunge into welfare statism. To the contrary, it is all but guaranteed to hasten the “cradle-to-grave” type of government that socialists long for.

But, what about a candidate who is economically conservative and socially liberal? This is often the combination offered as our salvation and just as often seems to have less than satisfactory results.

On the one hand, Barry Goldwater would be considered socially liberal today because he was pro-choice regarding abortion and had no problem with gays in the military. However, he favored privatization of Social Security and closing the United States Department of Education, certainly not the positions of a social liberal. He was unquestionably economically conservative because he advocated sharp reductions in the size and scope of government, a flat tax long before Steve Forbes popularized the concept, government operating strictly within the bounds of the US Constitution, etc. And, he lived up to those ideals in every speech he gave and every vote he made. His social values reflect his libertarian nature, which never changed during his life.

Goldwater could probably be elected today only in a very conservative area, but in spite of all the good he could do to preserve our American Republic, he would have to face the prospect of social conservatives staying home on Election Day. And, that would be self-defeating for social conservatives who recognize the dangers of both Democrat and Republican big government.

Richard Viguerie frames the issue well in his book entitled "Conservatives Betrayed." In the context of Supreme Court judges he says, "given a choice between a judge who's 'personally' pro-life (but believes in judicial activism), and one who 'personally' supports abortion (but supports originalism), conservatives must support the second choice - the one who would help overturn Roe and otherwise restore the authority of the Constitution."

On the other hand, most self-described modern-day economically conservative, socially liberal candidates generally seem to find a way to let us down. The tip-off about their core values comes when they describe themselves as flexible and in favor of the “politics of the possible.” That is liberal speak for a willingness to compromise, and what they compromise on too frequently is economic issues.

Always remember that a “nonideological” legislator - which describes most current “economically conservative, socially liberal” legislators - is a pragmatist. In a crisis, especially on a complicated matter where absolutes are essential to sort out the issues involved, a pragmatist must appeal to men of principle for guidance. Today’s “moderate” Republicans rarely seek guidance from conservatives.

The economically conservative, socially liberal candidate is often offered because a district or a state is proclaimed by liberals to be too liberal or moderate for a conservative to win. The 2003 California recall of Democrat Governor Gray Davis is a quintessential example. After ultra-liberal Republican Richard Riordan’s campaign to replace Davis imploded, the clear frontrunner was California’s most principled conservative, State Senator Tom McClintock. This was intolerable for California liberals who then recruited “economically conservative, socially liberal” Arnold Schwarzenegger. They admitted that McClintock was far better qualified for the job, but claimed he couldn’t win in a state as liberal as California. This is highly questionable because McClintock has high favorable ratings even with California’s liberal Democrats.

Conservatives bought the line and elected Schwarzenegger. The golden opportunity for government reform in California has been squandered with the state budget continuing to grow as rapidly as it did with Davis. To the dismay of conservatives, Schwarzenegger recently proposed a socialized-medicine scheme that would have included illegal immigrant children. And, of course, he has fully embraced the global-warming scam.

The standard “moderate” Republican line is, “we elected him and he was clear about his liberal beliefs, so stay the course.”

As in Schwarzenegger’s case, it's too often a self-fulfilling prophecy. Liberal Republicans stick together to make sure we elect their candidates and then call conservatives quitters when they threaten to stay home on Election Day. All they want is to postpone our day of reckoning for one more election.

In Goldwater’s era, Republican liberals like Nelson Rockefeller did everything they could to elect “moderates” and slammed conservatives who dared oppose them. Today, liberal groups like the Republican Main Street Partnership, whose members include John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Arlen Specter, are committed to electing “moderate” Republicans who are anything but moderate toward conservatives who dare oppose them.

To reform the Republican Party, we must take the effort to discover who the true economically conservative candidates are. If they are incumbents, their voting record is the best, but not the only, source available to judge by. The organizations they belong to and support is also quite informative. If they are not incumbents, check to see if they have signed a pledge to never vote to raise taxes, to forsake earmarks, to promote a national right-to-work law, for example, it’s a good indication that they are legitimate.

The Club for Growth is one of the very best sources for determining who’s a good guy and who’s a faker. The growing effectiveness of talk radio and the blogosphere make it far easier to discover which politicians are for reducing the size of government and which ones are likely to support the ever-growing-government status quo. To repair the Republican Party, we must get behind the former and shun the latter.

While this discussion has stressed the need to act most quickly on the economic front, there is good news for social conservatives. When you find economic conservatives who propose governing in the Goldwater tradition - best characterized by his desire to make government smaller - you are very likely to find a man or woman of great moral character. It goes without saying that the current leadership of the Republican Party regards the Goldwater tradition much as a vampire regards a Christian cross.