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.
Does anyone fit this description? It seems more popular than ever to be a combination of socially liberal and fiscally conservative - in fact it appears to be the new American norm - but the opposite seems rare, at least on a national basis. I am fiercely opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, but support public social programs (especially health insurance), longer vacation times, maternity leaves, etc., and (limited) re-distribution of wealth (especially of liquid assets - think hedge fund managers and investment bankers), so I guess I sort of fit the label. Anybody else out there?
Being "socially conservative" means that you adhere to "traditional" values of hard work, personal responsibility, and the nuclear family unit being viewed as the primary social unit with patriarchal control of the family unit.
Being "fiscally liberal" means that you believe that the government should replace the parents as the primary "provider." The family unit is de-emphasized as the primary social unit in relation to the emphasis placed on community, ethnicity or locality. In order to emphasize the governments role of provider, it needs more revenue (higher taxes) in order to provide more social services.
These social and economic views are in direct contradiction to one another. That's why you don't see people describing themselves that way.
Being "socially conservative" means that you adhere to "traditional" values of hard work, personal responsibility, and the nuclear family unit being viewed as the primary social unit with patriarchal control of the family unit.
Being "fiscally liberal" means that you believe that the government should replace the parents as the primary "provider." The family unit is de-emphasized as the primary social unit in relation to the emphasis placed on community, ethnicity or locality. In order to emphasize the governments role of provider, it needs more revenue (higher taxes) in order to provide more social services.
These social and economic views are in direct contradiction to one another. That's why you don't see people describing themselves that way.
I agree. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative go hand in hand together- both focus on freedoms.
I agree. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative go hand in hand together- both focus on freedoms.
Strawflower, you are on to something. We have to hope that the old "culture wars" do not play much of a role in the November elections--which should be a referendum on the economic freedom and prosperity that is the American birthright. As you note, freedom is the underlying issue.
Being "socially conservative" means that you adhere to "traditional" values of hard work, personal responsibility, and the nuclear family unit being viewed as the primary social unit with patriarchal control of the family unit.
Being "fiscally liberal" means that you believe that the government should replace the parents as the primary "provider." The family unit is de-emphasized as the primary social unit in relation to the emphasis placed on community, ethnicity or locality. In order to emphasize the governments role of provider, it needs more revenue (higher taxes) in order to provide more social services.
These social and economic views are in direct contradiction to one another. That's why you don't see people describing themselves that way.
Interesting. That's one way of looking at it, though there are other perspectives as well.
Like the social conservatives you described, I see the father-headed family as being the basic (or primary) unit of society. However, I also view the primary responsibility of the government as promoting the well-being of the family, by accomplishing tasks and providing goods which are best done at a higher level of governance than the family itself. This includes mostly incontroverted tasks such as the defense of the nation and infrastructure, but I also believe it also extends to such things as education and health care.
I think it is fully possible for the two views to be reconciled, as long as one places both in a certain (and in my opinion, proper) perspective.
There are also a lot of socially liberal, fiscally conservative people (the polar opposite of what you are). Some are "Blue dog democrats" or "log cabin republicans". Maybe there is an analogous term for what you describe. Possibly compassionate conservatism.
Strawflower, you are on to something. We have to hope that the old "culture wars" do not play much of a role in the November elections--which should be a referendum on the economic freedom and prosperity that is the American birthright. As you note, freedom is the underlying issue.
But with freedom comes responsibility. That seems to be the shortcoming of the behaviors of the socially liberal. Fiscal conservatism is all about responsibility.
A patriarchal family is fine unless the patriarch is an evil tempered alcoholic with an obsession for his dead previous wife. I spent my childhood with one of those bastards and the damage is still with me.
I think the government should support women and kids well enough that divorcing a drunken bastard does not dump them into abject poverty. A just society would remove economic coercion from most decisions.
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.
