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.
To me, "fiscally liberal" means spending money in a wonton fashion in the here-and-now without any regard for possible future consequences. Such as, getting paid on a Friday only to spend the entire check on a single night out even though you live paycheck-to-paycheck.
Well then there is no such thing as a "fiscal liberal" which might explain why no one claims to be one. We live in a political economy with strong competing claims over how and what government money is spent for what various segments of the country consider to be important governmental functions. This is true for both of the governing political parties. In the political process of determining what functions are to be funded or not the process attempts to reconcile those differences which can have detrimental effects one the future economy depending on what side of fiscal policy one sits. But I would argue that neither political party believes in "wonton" spending or have no regard for their immediate or long term consequences just widely variant arguments of what those consequences might be.
You don't appear to understand what you're talking about.
The "conservative" part of fiscal conservative refers to how one deals with financial resources, not what those resources pay for. One can have very politically liberal views yet apply fiscal conservative thinking toward the use of resources that provide the means to support those liberal views.
Take abortion rights for example. Those in favor of it are usually identified as having a liberal philosophy, politically speaking. Those same people could also care a great deal about not wasting money when it comes to abortions. That doesn't mean they don't want to pay for abortions, but they wouldn't want 50 different programs competing for limited resources and thus not accomplishing the desired effect.
On the contrary, a conservative, politically speaking, could support programs that are redundant and inefficient.
The reason so few results are returned for the terms you compare to "fiscal conservative" might have something to do with more people understanding what it means and you just happen to fall into the categories of those that do not.
“Liberal” and “conservative” as terms have become corrupted, whitewashed, demonized, rehabilitated and reappropriated so many times that it’s pointless to assign to them a particular meaning except in very narrow and immediate context.
Returning to the OP’s post, there’s a strong undercurrent in American culture that despises centralization and use of national resources for large projects conceived and managed by the public sector. Unless there’s a dire emergency, such as WWII, or a threat to our society’s prestige, such as what spawned the space-race, Americans of most stripes have little stomach for intentionally paying higher taxes in exchange for more services. The Hamiltonian idea of a strong national government wielding power as arbitrator of the market, of national investment and standards of living was discrediting pretty much with Hamilton’s death. Even though the modern state in practice resembles Hamilton’s ideas, in theory acknowledgement of such ideas is regarded as unseemly and downright un-American.
The Hamiltonian idea of a strong national government wielding power as arbitrator of the market, of national investment and standards of living was discrediting pretty much with Hamilton’s death.
Let's see... Hamilton died in 1857 and federalism was firmly and irrevocably established by 1865 despite the fantasies of certain segments of the body politic who seem to be stuck in the era of the Articles of Confederacy. As for what is and what isn't un-American well I suppose that depends on one's ability to separate myth from historical reality.
It's fairly common for someone to identify himself/herself as a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. But you never hear anyone call themselves a "fiscal liberal" or "fiscal progressive." Why is that?
"Fiscally conservative" was the term people opposed to big spending and debt used to describe themselves; "fiscal liberal" is only used by analogy to fiscal conservatives, so all other things being equal you would see less use of the fiscal liberal term. In addition to this, being liberal and freewheeling about spending other people's money strikes most people (myself included) as reckless and even perverted, and there is also the general negative connotation of the word "liberal". The latter strikes me as bizarre, but I digress.
Also, as another poster said it is possible to be socially liberal, committed to welfare and regulation, and be fiscally conservative all at the same time. However, this is very difficult to implement, especially in countries with bloated budgets and programs such as the United States. However, in the US you could cut the military by 50% and shave $330 billion off the deficit without impacting liberal programs at all. Of course that still leaves you with an additional $700 billion to cut, but the point is that you can be relatively fiscally conservative and be a liberal at the same time. Traditionally this was a mainstream view among the American left.
Hypothetically, you could also run a state that provided the poor with basic welfare, had tough regulations (on banks for instance), stayed out of people's bedrooms, and that had balanced budgets and flat income taxes. This would be as fiscally conservative as you could get and still be considered liberal. The ultimate in fiscal conservatism would be the night watchman state, but that's a libertarian idea, not a liberal one (seeing as the night watchman state provides no welfare).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Let's see... Hamilton died in 1857 and federalism was firmly and irrevocably established by 1865 despite the fantasies of certain segments of the body politic who seem to be stuck in the era of the Articles of Confederacy. As for what is and what isn't un-American well I suppose that depends on one's ability to separate myth from historical reality.
Centralized power and unlimited government is not as American as apple pie like you would like us to believe. Under that standard the Founding Fathers, with their ideas of liberty and by present-day standards radically small government, were un-American. Talk about fantasies . I would submit that any conception of the American ideal that classifies the principles of the Founders as un-American is flawed. Also, federalism, as defined in the Constitution and agreed upon in the 1790's, meant that the then-sovereign states delegated specific powers to the central government, and all other powers were retained by the states. Any later subversion of that system cannot change the historical facts. The fact is America was not founded on the principle of centralized power. The merits of centralization vs. decentralization is a separate issue, and frankly one that is more interesting. It's also not an issue that belongs in this thread.
Last edited by Patricius Maximus; 04-15-2013 at 04:05 PM..
Centralized power and unlimited government is not as American as apple pie like you would like us to believe.
Since neither Hamilton, myself or anyone that I can think of are in favor of "centralized power" or unlimited government I can comment on whether it is apple pie or cherry rhubarb.
Quote:
federalism, as defined in the Constitution and agreed upon in the 1790's, meant that the then-sovereign states delegated specific powers to the central government, and all other powers were retained by the states.
It was 1788, and the states didn't delegate power to the national government they ceded it. As for all powers, those delegated to the the national government, are then retained by the states and "to the people." Further I hasten to point out that the preamble to the Constitution reads as follows:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note that it does not even mention the states. As Daniel Webster so eloquently observed the Constitution is a compact between the national government and the People.
Quote:
Any later subversion of that system cannot change the historical facts.
I couldn't agree with you more. Our difference is that I prefer historical fact to historical mythology.
This is my understanding of why you had so few few results: fiscally liberal, in general, is a derogatory term. People who are described as fiscally liberal are thought to waste money and/or spend money that we don't have and make up for it by mindlessly taxing those who earn a lot (through hard work). A more prevalent and used term would be fiscally POPULIST:
1. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative = in general, a Libertarian ... but Libertarian also comes with other strings like opposing most government intervention in things, which isn't inherently connected with this view set.
2. Socially conservative and fiscally conservative = in general, the Republican base.
3. Socially conservative, fiscally populist = kind of a "folksy" candidate. Many Southern Democrats and/or Democrats from inner cities that represent a lot of minorities hold this view set. It's very much a "for the people/common man" type ideology. It's also very descriptive of the stances the Catholic Church and many Catholics take to this day.
4. Socially liberal fiscally liberal = in general, the Democratic base.
Pretty much from the time the GOP was formed in the mid-1800s to the 1980s, it was a fiscally conservative, socially moderate party. Pretty much from the time Andrew Jackson got the ball rolling for modern Democrats to the 1970s, Democrats were fiscally populist and socially moderate. In the '80s, you really saw a polarization of the two parties on social issues, and by the 2000s, the moderates in both parties were sadly substantial minorities, though they do still exist.
But make no mistake ... no matter what anyone tells you about how much the two parties have changed (and they definitely have) over the years, the one thing that has been consistent is that Republicans have always been viewed as fiscally conservative, compassionate toward businesses, opposing of excessive taxation, etc. while Democrats have usually championed populist economic policies, paying taxes in exchange for government programs that help the masses, keeping corporations in check, etc.
I think both ideas are right, the issue is we need to find balance. The two parties as they stand going towards the far end of spectrum are not balancing. You have democrats who wont budge and republicans who wont. America has been at a breaking point for the last five years and sooner or later it will snap. Barring a dramatic change where both parties work together. I know, a dirty word in politics.
It's fairly common for someone to identify himself/herself as a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. But you never hear anyone call themselves a "fiscal liberal" or "fiscal progressive." Why is that? It's essentially what I am, as I support a large number of social assistance programs, though I'd say I feel more strongly about my socially liberal views.
In fact, if I google the terms I get the following results:
"Fiscal conservative" - 738,000 results
"Fiscal liberal" - 13,000 results
"Fiscal progressive" - 2,700 results
That's pretty much me in a nutshell. I'm fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal on common issues. I'm sort of a conservative atheist. Does that even exist?
To me, "fiscally liberal" means spending money in a wonton fashion in the here-and-now without any regard for possible future consequences. Such as, getting paid on a Friday only to spend the entire check on a single night out even though you live paycheck-to-paycheck.
Besides, why label yourself when every Conservative poster on C-D (ahem, the Politics forum) seems to honestly believe that all Liberals not only, but absolutely love, to raise taxes for no other purpose than to waste it all on frivolous programs and other spending
Well, seeing as how the liberals on this forum vote like lemmings for Democrats who "absolutely love" to raise taxes and waste it all on frivolous programs, it's not so tough to make the connection.
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.
. I would submit that any conception of the American ideal that classifies the principles of the Founders as un-American is flawed. Also, federalism, as defined in the Constitution and agreed upon in the 1790's, meant that the then-sovereign states delegated specific powers to the central government, and all other powers were retained by the states. Any later subversion of that system cannot change the historical facts. The fact is America was not founded on the principle of centralized power. The merits of centralization vs. decentralization is a separate issue, and frankly one that is more interesting. It's also not an issue that belongs in this thread.
