U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-09-2009, 09:46 AM
 
Location: IN
20,176 posts, read 34,521,341 times
Reputation: 12514

Advertisements

I believe the two are largely incompatible. Discuss

Social Conservatism- It is generally consists of the "traditional values" voters who prefer greater government intrustion in the personal lives of others. Social conservatism is often grounded in deeply held religious beliefs and larger family size. Social conservatives often come from "modest" financial backgrounds and impose a greater demand for basic town and city services, particularly in burgeoning suburban entities. If social conservatives want to live in mcmansion developments in suburbs they should not subsidize the costs of these developments onto the taxpayer. They should be forced to pay a specials tax added onto the property tax for living in the development. The developer should also foot the bill for the costs associated with the expansion of water, sewer, electric, etc.
Fiscal Conservatism- It is grounded in the more traditional aspects of conservatism in general. Most fiscal conservatives favor smaller government, staunch accountability of town finances, support buying land for conservation in order to keep town costs in line, and firmly believe in the separation of church and state. Many in this group are also big supporters of the 2nd ammendment as well. They are what I would call more libertarian leaning with a more stringent following of the constitution. Fiscal conservatives generally differ compared to social conservatives because they tend to be less devoutely religious with smaller family size.

Last edited by GraniteStater; 07-09-2009 at 10:56 AM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2009, 09:56 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,479,097 times
Reputation: 3869
It might be helpful if you defined the terms.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 10:55 AM
 
5,767 posts, read 10,034,016 times
Reputation: 3809
Interventionist social conservatism probably is. If we are talking about the Mike Huckabee model, for instance.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 10:57 AM
 
Location: IN
20,176 posts, read 34,521,341 times
Reputation: 12514
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
Interventionist social conservatism probably is. If we are talking about the Mike Huckabee model, for instance.
Yes, you hit on one of my key points. I added some info to my original post.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 11:27 AM
 
3,706 posts, read 3,032,296 times
Reputation: 10030
I don't believe "conservatism," is, by it's nature, anything more than what the term implies. The modern day twist in language is partly to blame for the lableling of political notions, wherein the lable is supposed to provide a broad definition of certain political views.

The term, social conservatism, is not genuine in it's attempt to provide delineation from other types of neatly bundled commentary, so popular today. It is these kinds of language conventions that tend to obscure the valid concerns shared by many American's. Liberal's vs Conservative's, this is the political pardigm we need to change, most of my countrymen are beginning to sense the futility of seeking progress in a nation so divided.

To be an advocate of social policies that seem to conflict with one's personal sense of fiscal responsibility makes no sense, however, we cannot subjugate our social responsibility to some rigid idea, that proposes a darwinian economics as some kind of salvation.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,625,428 times
Reputation: 35875
The OP has packed his definitions with self-serving buzzwords, and cherry-picked the criteria he wishes to use to define his terms.

These definitions, from Wikipedia, although perhaps imperfect, might be a more objective starting point:

Social conservatism is a political or moral ideology that believes government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent.

Fiscal conservatism is a political phrase term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a reduction in overall government spending.


On their face, I don't see anything mutually exclusive about them. Although it is probably widely prevalent that the advocates of one of them have specific agendas that are inconsistent with the advocates of the other.

Last edited by jtur88; 07-09-2009 at 11:40 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 12:11 PM
 
Location: IN
20,176 posts, read 34,521,341 times
Reputation: 12514
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The OP has packed his definitions with self-serving buzzwords, and cherry-picked the criteria he wishes to use to define his terms.

These definitions, from Wikipedia, although perhaps imperfect, might be a more objective starting point:

Social conservatism is a political or moral ideology that believes government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent.

Fiscal conservatism is a political phrase term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a reduction in overall government spending.


On their face, I don't see anything mutually exclusive about them. Although it is probably widely prevalent that the advocates of one of them have specific agendas that are inconsistent with the advocates of the other.
Well, my analysis of the two differing branches of conservatism comes from direct experience. I lived many years near the Kansas City metro, which is a bastion of social conservatism. I presently live in New Hampshire which is a bastion of fiscal conservatism.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,595,785 times
Reputation: 24548
Social conservatives try to save your soul and fiscal conservatives try and save your money. Both assume they know the correct way to live better than you. I prefer the notion that we are responsible for our citizens welfare (particularly the innocent children getting hammered by poverty or addicted parents) and that we have no business telling anyone who or what to worship.

Fiscal conservatism in NH is principally applied selfishness based on an “I’ve got mine and to hell with you” attitude. There are very few social conservatives because most people simply don’t care.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 12:38 PM
 
48,971 posts, read 39,438,561 times
Reputation: 30627
I view myself as a fiscal conservative and socially I prefer not to label myself (read more for why) but generally believe that there are some things that must be done for the greater good (ie. things like school lunch programs for poor children) and otherwise to let people make thier own choices (as long as they don't hurt others) AND LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES of their free choice.

I view social liberals and conservatives in the same light, they just have different beliefs they want you to adhere to.

I live in the KC metro area and many of my neighbors are social liberals, it's probably not as uptight as it might have been in the past. I would identify more with social liberals if they had more sense of personal responsibility and with social conservatives if they were better able to see shades of grey.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 01:16 PM
 
Location: IN
20,176 posts, read 34,521,341 times
Reputation: 12514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
I I would identify more with social liberals if they had more sense of personal responsibility and with social conservatives if they were better able to see shades of grey.
Exactly, which is why I am more of an Independent and can see the positives as well as the fallacies of both parties.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top