The problem with being "Fiscal Conservative and Social Liberal" (radical, abortion)
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.
A lot of people say they are both, but if you are a fiscal conservative you should probably oppose drug legalization and other socially liberal ideals, which will do nothing but cause a need for more law enforcement, rehab, welfare etc other tax payer funded actions. Why would a fiscal conservative support actions which will put more people on welfare?
The social liberal stance sabotages the fiscal conservative stance, so it makes no sense to promote both.
Do you support ACA? Universal Healthcare is a classic example of something social liberals would support, but it is also a classic example of something fiscal conservative would oppose. How can one person be both a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal? It seems many within the GOP are trying to be both in order to attract more independent vote, but I think they are eroding the conservative foundation their party is built upon.
This is simple. Liberals generally want to control your money. Conservatives generally want to control your soul and your behavior. Both are bankrupt and immoral. So the best policy is to cherry pick the things they get right, while not embracing the evil parts.
So to cherry pick the conservatives: You want less taxation, very few social programs, and no redistribution of private property. However, you reject the mysticism and irrationality, you reject the irrational moral pronouncements, you reject the bigotry and hate of those different from you, and you reject the behavior of telling others how to live.
And to cherry pick the liberals: You embrace "live and let live", you embrace the open and happy acceptance of all races, creeds, colors, what have you. You embrace Reason over mysticism. However, you reject social engineering, government control and over-regulation, environmental fascism, militant veganism, collectivism, etc.
Liberals want your money, conservatives want your soul. You perform a philosophical evilectomy on the worst aspects of each school, and retain the parts they get right.
You then end up with an excellent, rational, and balanced way of life.
That's cool, but it contradicts a socially liberal stance, because supporting most social liberal issues requires money, and lots of it.
No, you're describing a social welfare state.
Supporting socially liberal issues means freeing people to make their own choices/decisions and giving them the freedom to enjoy the rewards or suffer the consequences of their self-selected choices and decisions, without government interference.
We here this talk about the Tea Party and Libertarians want to get government outside our lives. But which states are Republican and oppose legalization of marijuana...its the Tea Party-Republican states.
Total post fail. Your generalizations reflect a biased and uneducated position. Liberalization of marijuana laws is not split by red and blue states.
Using your map, here are some “blue states” that have not liberalized marijuana laws; Michigan, Penn, Wisconsin.
Here are some “Red states” that have liberalized marijuana laws: Mississippi, Nebraska, Arizona, North Carolina.
Swing states (split last four presidential elections) that have liberalized marijuana laws: Colorado, Nevada, Ohio.
So your post is incorrect. And oh BTW, Obama totally supports the war on drugs. So is he a "red state" or "blue state" guy?
This is simple. Liberals generally want to control your money. Conservatives generally want to control your soul and your behavior. Both are bankrupt and immoral. So the best policy is to cherry pick the things they get right, while not embracing the evil parts.
So to cherry pick the conservatives: You want less taxation, very few social programs, and no redistribution of private property. However, you reject the mysticism and irrationality, you reject the irrational moral pronouncements, you reject the bigotry and hate of those different from you, and you reject the behavior of telling others how to live.
And to cherry pick the liberals: You embrace "live and let live", you embrace the open and happy acceptance of all races, creeds, colors, what have you. You embrace Reason over mysticism. However, you reject social engineering, government control and over-regulation, environmental fascism, militant veganism, collectivism, etc.
Liberals want your money, conservatives want your soul. You perform a philosophical evilectomy on the worst aspects of each school, and retain the parts they get right.
You then end up with an excellent, rational, and balanced way of life.
LOL. Good post, but you'd have to reject all socially liberal issues which cost money, which is pretty much all of them.
OK, so why would a person call him/herself a social liberal if they are not going to support socially liberal issues with their votes?
Depends on how you define socially liberal. When someone says that they are fiscally conservative/socially liberal what most mean is that they are against legislating morality, or in other words, laws that limit people's choices when that choice has no impact on others. They are also against people being forced to pay for other people's choices. That means they support a woman being able to sleep with whoever she wants; if she gets pregnant she can choose whether to remain pregnant or not and if she gives birth whether to keep it or not, however other people (tax money) should not have to pay for her birth control, abortion, or the cost of raising the child.
Most of those people are at heart Libertarians, and when a Libertarian is on the ballad that is generally who they support.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Sure, but you throw out 90% of social issues, does it still make sense to identify as a social liberal? It doesn't make sense to me.
Let me give you an example - one in which I find no real contradiction.
You brought up the issue of same-sex marriages. But you also opined that government should get out of the marriage business although the reality is that in addition to the "moral" arguments for many, there's also the reality that fiscal benefits accrue to married couples yet thus far the federal government seems to take the stance of "equal but different." Ring a bell?
According to some strict tenets of my faith, same sex marriages should never be recognized, much less "rewarded" by tax implications. But let's look at reality. Homosexuality exists and always has. The "rightness" or "wrongness" argument is strictly faith-based yet has figured large in politics. I personally feel it should not do so and should be left up to churches, temples, synagogues, etc.
Democrats/liberals are predominantly in favor of same sex marriages. Republicans/conservatives generally line up against it. But isn't this country supposedly the "land of the free?" While I would tend to vote on the right side of the aisle for the sake of fiscal responsibility, I would never vote for someone virulently opposed to gay couples because I feel that is none of their damn business. Add to that the fact that one of my daughters is a lesbian, married to her partner of many years and they are both happy, productive, responsible and hard-working individuals. But despite that, I still wouldn't have voted for someone who favored any kind of overt, over-reaching discrimination.
Closer to home, Senator Claire McCaskill is a relatively liberal Democrat and while I greatly appreciate her attention to veteran issues and the fact that she is very supportive of veterans, of which I am one, I might have voted against her in the last election because of other policies she favored. That's the fiscal conservative in me. The Republicans nominated Representative Todd Akin to run against her. During the campaign he spoke out about what he termed "legitimate rape" saying that it rarely led to pregnancy. Now he is fiscally conservative which I appreciate but in all good conscience I could not vote for anyone that dumb and that dismissive of women's issues so Claire received both my vote and my wife's (who also happens to be a former midwife).
LOL. Good post, but you'd have to reject all socially liberal issues which cost money, which is pretty much all of them.
Liberal issues that cost the government money are by definition, not liberal. They're government control over yet another aspect of our lives.
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 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.
