"Social" Conservative???

Can someone please answer me one thing about the on-going Presidential campaigns: Why do we (the American public) care so much about our candidates' social views? I'm certainly not saying that I don't. I do. Very much in fact. For instance, I'd really like to vote for Mitt Romney for numerous reasons: he's articulate, becoming fiscally conservative, apparent strong family values, bi-partisan cooperation, in many ways electable when compared to other potential Republican candidates, socially conservative, demonstrably ambitious, of high moral fiber, etc. etc.,,, the list goes on. All that said, he's a Mormon, and I know Mormons. I grew up around them. I was ostracized by them as early as age 5. I was even discriminated against because I wasn't one of them as a child, and even as an adult, until I moved away from the I-84 "Mormon corridor" between Boise, ID and Salt Lake City, UT. I don't intend to use this forum as a conduit for denigration, so I don't want to go on about the Mormons. I point out my "issues" with the so-called religion because I am laboring over whether or not I can put my differences with the institution aside when it comes to voting for a Presidential candidate--knowing of his affiliation with the aforementioned institution. I simply don't know if I can.

But why? Why should his religious beliefs/affiliations play into my voting decision? I know full well that the President doesn't have the power to instill his religious beliefs into the nation as a whole. I do, however know that his background will guide his decisions as President, and I fear (knowing first hand the workings of the church), that church leaders may feel it is their right to influence a sitting Mormon president. Mitt Romney, because of the extreme power that an upbringing carries, may feel compelled to be swayed in an important Presidential decision by the ideals of the church, if not the leaders' influence directly. He may be threatened with a lower kingdom of heaven if he doesn't influence the passing of a federal statute enabling polygamy. Or he may not be awarded Godship of his own universe after death if he doesn't levy a tax on all non-Mormons. Or he may cause an international uproar if the Emir of Kuwait finds out about his magic underwear! Likely?? Probably not. I know. However, I do know about the political clout that Mormons have within the state of Utah, and I don't want to see it occur on a national scale.

But back to my original question. Should we really be that concerned about a candidates stand on abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, prayer in public schools, and the like? The economist in me says no. A resounding "NO". Just about everything in this world can in some way be governed with the purse string. Simply put, a candidate's fiscal policy should be the true measuring stick of how he will govern. If you want a President that is for big Government, big spending, and big taxes, then vote for the most liberal candidate. If you want a President that is for small Government, tight spending, and lower taxes, then vote for the most conservative candidate. That is truly what the words "liberal" and "conservative" mean....

All that said, the social aspects of American politics seem to dominate our airwaves. The pundits like to ask the tough questions in hopes of inciting controversy. I too, am guilty of being sucked into finding out which candidate most aligns with my social views. I guess it's the nature of our political system to have such discussions, I just wish they would spend as much time on those issues that will truly have the most effect on the nation as a whole--how much money they will be taking out of our pockets,, and what programs they will be funding with our money.