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.
Being socially conservative and fiscallt liberal is usually a sign of the lack of education. It sounds very much religious people and working-class people.
First if you're socially conservative, likely you are a bigot and you're prejudiced toward many other people. On top of that, you're also financially idiotic as you support giving handouts to other people. The whole position just sounds very lame to me
I fit the bill loosely. I believe that some cultural constructs (e.g., white Christian protestant) work better than others (try to point out any Anglo-Saxon country or northern European country that is an abject failure-and then compare that to just about anywhere else in the world), some religions are awful (Islam). I also believe a marriage bond should last for life, you should be faithful and self-sacrificing for your family, and I don't really (personally) care for homosexuality or politically correct attempts to massage the obvious truths of the human heart. Moreover, I don't think all people equal in ability, and I don't think anything except hard work will lead to success in most case. However, I know that I am opinionated and bigoted, so I don't want to arm those personal opinions with the power of the state. I am tolerant that others might be conservative or liberal in their own way, and I am not God. In this sense I am pretty close to the guy who said (loosely), "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it." Anyhow, socially conservative to a degree.
I am very fiscally conservative myself. I live within my means, loathe personal debt, pay my taxes honestly and without whining, and try to give to my community as I can. However, I do know enough of global politics and economics to know that a fiscally conservative structure, at least as put forward by the GOP, leads to disaster. We did that in the Gilded Age. We did it in the 1920s, we did it in the 2000s. In all cases, the laissez faire politics led to grotesque inequality, the fox watching the hens, instability, and eventual fiscal wipe out. The expansion of the middle class in in the postwar years in the USA and Europe, led to massive improvements in the macroeconomy and to tremendous advances in human capital and achievement across the board, and massive expansions of everything worth taking pride in in a country (public schools, universities, monuments, national parks, highways, public buildings and monuments,etc.). Conservative policies allow too much power to aggregate in too few, erode the public institutions that serve all, and head us back towards the lord / serf model of Old Europe. My ideal fiscal models would be something like Canada or Sweden (or postwar USA), which has elements of fiscal conservatism, but is actually well to the left of the Democratic Party in the USA.
This post sounded very self-aggrandizing. I am no saint. My only point was that I suspect many people are personally somewhat conservative, but support liberal policies, and can explain why.
Personally, I don't know anyone today who fits the description of social conservative/fiscal liberal, but William Jennings Bryan, Democratic candidate for president in 1896, 1900 and 1908, fit that description perhaps better than any other figure in our political history. A passionate fundamentalist Christian leader who opposed the theoretical scientific trends of his day (Darwinistic evolution), and yet was an equally passionate advocate of the common man. Theodore Roosevelt even accused him of being a naked socialist. Interestingly, I remember reading that his reason for opposing evolution and upholding creationism was that accepting Darwin's teachings would provide justification for racist regimes of genocide, the end result of a 'survival of the fittest' struggle. The teachings of Biblical creationism, by contrast, gave dignity to people when it declared that every person, regardless of race, is created in the image of God. Bryan was truly an original in American history; I really can't think of a parallel to him, except maybe Jimmy Carter.
Personally, I don't know anyone today who fits the description of social conservative/fiscal liberal, but William Jennings Bryan, Democratic candidate for president in 1896, 1900 and 1908, fit that description perhaps better than any other figure in our political history. A passionate fundamentalist Christian leader who opposed the theoretical scientific trends of his day (Darwinistic evolution), and yet was an equally passionate advocate of the common man. Theodore Roosevelt even accused him of being a naked socialist. Interestingly, I remember reading that his reason for opposing evolution and upholding creationism was that accepting Darwin's teachings would provide justification for racist regimes of genocide, the end result of a 'survival of the fittest' struggle. The teachings of Biblical creationism, by contrast, gave dignity to people when it declared that every person, regardless of race, is created in the image of God. Bryan was truly an original in American history; I really can't think of a parallel to him, except maybe Jimmy Carter.
You could even make the argument the Jesus was socially conservative and fiscally liberal. He claimed there was only one path to God (through himself), can't get more conservative than that, but also advocated a communal lifestyle that was about generosity and sacrifice, and he scorned an obsession with material possessions. As I recall, he also did not care to listen to whining about taxes either (give what is Caesar's to Caesar..).
The main reason I started this thread is that I think social conservatism and fiscal liberalism actually have much more in common than it would appear on the surface. I also believe that it is very unfortunate that we have two political parties in this country and one panders to the social conservatives and one to the fiscal liberals.
The common bond between social conservatism and fiscal liberalism is that applying either philosophy in government requires imposing one group's beliefs on others. To me, that is an inherently un-American way of doing things. In any case, I was kind of wondering if this was a form of monotheism, that people either based their beliefs on the teachings of their lord and savior or president and congress, but not both.
Almost all social conservatives are religious. They believe that their iteration and back story of god is 100% correct, which is totally fine. EXCEPT, many of these same people want to make laws that impose their ideology on the masses. Whether you agree or disagree with a particular stance, that's a pretty dodgy road to go down. The current gay marriage debate pretty much sums it up. I cringe every time I hear a prospective presidential candidate say they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Good for you and your religion. What does that have to do with the Constitution and the rule of law? (Hint: NOTHING)
While social conservatives put their faith in god, fiscal liberals put their faith in government. This is where the two become almost interchangeable. A committed fiscal liberal believes that government will almost always act in the interest of the masses. They believe that the government has a right, if not a duty, to confiscate resources and distribute them as the government sees fit. They believe that the government spends money more equitably and productively than individuals, which is how they justify many people having half or more of their income seized by different levels of government.
Fiscally liberal policies are just like socially conservative policies. They force people to do (and pay for) certain things just because others believe they are right. Fiscal conservatives and social liberals are the opposite; if we could just get them both in the same political party and pit them against the social conservatives and fiscal liberals, that's a winning ticket.
The main reason I started this thread is that I think social conservatism and fiscal liberalism actually have much more in common than it would appear on the surface. I also believe that it is very unfortunate that we have two political parties in this country and one panders to the social conservatives and one to the fiscal liberals.
The common bond between social conservatism and fiscal liberalism is that applying either philosophy in government requires imposing one group's beliefs on others. To me, that is an inherently un-American way of doing things. In any case, I was kind of wondering if this was a form of monotheism, that people either based their beliefs on the teachings of their lord and savior or president and congress, but not both.
Almost all social conservatives are religious. They believe that their iteration and back story of god is 100% correct, which is totally fine. EXCEPT, many of these same people want to make laws that impose their ideology on the masses. Whether you agree or disagree with a particular stance, that's a pretty dodgy road to go down. The current gay marriage debate pretty much sums it up. I cringe every time I hear a prospective presidential candidate say they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Good for you and your religion. What does that have to do with the Constitution and the rule of law? (Hint: NOTHING)
While social conservatives put their faith in god, fiscal liberals put their faith in government. This is where the two become almost interchangeable. A committed fiscal liberal believes that government will almost always act in the interest of the masses. They believe that the government has a right, if not a duty, to confiscate resources and distribute them as the government sees fit. They believe that the government spends money more equitably and productively than individuals, which is how they justify many people having half or more of their income seized by different levels of government.
Fiscally liberal policies are just like socially conservative policies. They force people to do (and pay for) certain things just because others believe they are right. Fiscal conservatives and social liberals are the opposite; if we could just get them both in the same political party and pit them against the social conservatives and fiscal liberals, that's a winning ticket.
I see your points. One thing about fiscal liberals. They believe that civic investment is a form of giving to the community. Until the whole "government is evil" schtick got going people tended to feel government was a way to deal with the scale of modern society. Government is the only institution that will undertake things like public highways, national parks, universal health care, and public education. It is a too we collaborative develop, improve, and use to advance our society in many ways. The private sector can do a some of these things, but some things just do not cash flow, and so get ignored. Private industry is not going to do research into a financially trivial species for its own sake. Or make investments with no near-term likelihood of return. So, supporting government is not tantamount with supporting oppressive government. Government is like an army or police force. Sometimes prone to corruption, and in need of close oversight and criticism, but indispensable in the modern world.
And I disagree that all religious people want to put their views on others. Quite a few people can see the difference between their own creeds and the need to respect others'. Our founding fathers were just like this.
You make the erroneous claim that people who support social conservatism or fiscal liberalism are extremist. Many of us our moderates, who can recognize that just about any ideology taken to extremes ends in dogmatism and disaster. I suspect your idealized notion of a socially liberal, fiscally conservative world would be just as bad if taken to the extreme as a one size fits all approach.
"Fiscal conservatives and social liberals are the opposite; if we could just get them both in the same political party and pit them against the social conservatives and fiscal liberals, that's a winning ticket."
Okay, but if markets are inherently efficient (at least in the long run), and the political arena is a market of sorts, why hasn't this happened already?
Being socially conservative and fiscallt liberal is usually a sign of the lack of education. It sounds very much religious people and working-class people.
First if you're socially conservative, likely you are a bigot and you're prejudiced toward many other people. On top of that, you're also financially idiotic as you support giving handouts to other people. The whole position just sounds very lame to me
That's why it's strange that Obama is a social conservative and fiscal liberal.
I run across a lot of people that describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The general mindset of this group is, "I don't care who marries whom, as long as I don't have to pay for the wedding." This falls pretty well in line with libertarian principles.
There are also many people who are committed conservatives and committed liberals across the board.
However, I don't think I've ever heard someone say that they are socially conservative but support more liberal fiscal policies. I have two questions:
Is it just me, or do these people not exist?
If not, why do social conservatism and fiscal liberalism appear to be mutually exclusive?
I have.
It's typically someone that has strong religious convictions and a socialist streak which can also be religiously rooted, "help the poor" etc etc.
Hang around some good old german lutherans in pockets of the midwest, especially if they have some affluence and you'll find some sooner than later.
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.
