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.
Hummm, interesting question. I don't think they are incompatible at most points, but at some they are dealing with social programs. It might create an interesting dichotomy where people try and balance the two through self conflict.
I really think the labels themselves when not defined are the real problems in many political debates. There is a fantastic definition there, but many debate the finer points as having differing definitions of the same thing based on personal values. What one person view of social conservative is another persons liberal. Even then cramming something as complex as political views doesn't fit well into a set between two extremes, I know my views don't fit well in any party or label.
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.
How is it possible for the government to "encourage or enforce" something without spending to do so? Certainly all that time spent debating the definition of marriage, or whether we should spend money on stem cell research or Christmas pageants on the state house lawn, doesn't come free (nor for that matter do the research and/or the pageants).
How is it possible for the government to "encourage or enforce" something without spending to do so? Certainly all that time spent debating the definition of marriage, or whether we should spend money on stem cell research or Christmas pageants on the state house lawn, doesn't come free (nor for that matter do the research and/or the pageants).
You're operating from the extremist starting point that fiscal conservatism is defined as absolute zero spending with zero tolerance, non-negotiable.. Absolute zero extremism is rarely conducive to productive debate.
Originally Posted by Aconite How is it possible for the government to "encourage or enforce" something without spending to do so? Certainly all that time spent debating the definition of marriage, or whether we should spend money on stem cell research or Christmas pageants on the state house lawn, doesn't come free (nor for that matter do the research and/or the pageants).
You're operating from the extremist starting point that fiscal conservatism is defined as absolute zero spending with zero tolerance, non-negotiable.. Absolute zero extremism is rarely conducive to productive debate.
Not at all. I am, however, acknowledging that the more one inserts oneself into interpersonal contracts or "moral issues", the more potential expense.
Charges of "extremism", which is a politically loaded and generally pejorative term, are also not conducive to productive debate.
So social entitlement saves money? Quite the opposite.It alos limits teh people that buy into it and takes from those that really need the etitlements like the sick and handicppped.I the end it creats a society that discouages work.
So social entitlement saves money? Quite the opposite.It alos limits teh people that buy into it and takes from those that really need the etitlements like the sick and handicppped.I the end it creats a society that discouages work.
Not sure where you came up with that, Tex, or to whom you're responding? Nor, for that matter, sure what is your definition of "social entitlement".
I am a libertarian. I believe 90% of the laws we currently have are useless and serve to feed a monsturous federal beaurocracy that economically damages this country.
In my mind, people are free to live their lives as they currently see fit. What has happened to conservatism is that it has sold it's soul to several sea changes in society that have casued it to warp itself into something many americans increasingly see as hypocritcal and divisive. One would be the belief that America is a "Christian" nation. That is simply not true. The founding fathers were very religously open and were among the first european society to openly welcome Jews at a time they were being progromed from one european country to the next. Now, I am a Catholic, and beileve abortion is wrong, so on that front, I do in fact feel as thou they're right about that
But the fundies aren't really the deepest issue, the deepest issue is the sea change on how people see the world and their reactions to it. The current conservative ideology we see today has it's roots in the 1960s, when a combo of opposition to the Vietnam War as well as the civil rights movement caused an unholy marriage of geo-political hawks and racist whites to be cast out of the Democratic party and into the welcoming arms of the Neo-conservative think tanks. The Hawks saw in the Republicans a way to continue the Monroe doctrine of America guiding the global discourse of economics and politics across the globe. The Southern Dems, feeling that "government" was squarely on the side of racial intergration, began to make the government public enemy #1, and that's exactly what the Republicans were looking for in voters. By a 99% margin, In my opinion, where you find a blantantly racist poster, you will find a republican.
These things combined have tanited the water of conservatism. True liberalism died in the ashes of the Great Depression and scant few people have truly embodied it since then (Goldwater came pretty close).
Charges of "extremism", which is a politically loaded and generally pejorative term, are also not conducive to productive debate.
You're the one who said:
"How is it possible for the government to "encourage or enforce" something without spending to do so? "
It is easy to foster social policy with thoughtful limitations on spending, but not without spending.
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.
