Fiscal conservative...social liberal!

Over the years I've seen many people describe themselves as "fiscal conservative, but social liberal."

In a couple of threads here in PF, I've seen that expression used.

In the past, I have always considered people who feel that way essentially to be saying, "I recognize the value of the safety net programs progressives champion...but I just don't want to pay for them."

Sounds a bit shallow...both for the people I think that of...and for me for thinking it.

I know some decent people who use that description...and I want to think better of them. I'd appreciate any help anyone can give me to understand the position in a less judgmental way.

 

That is what I am but not social liberal for welrare. I consider myself socially liberal because I do not care what you do. I do not care what you do in your bed room, I do not care what drugs you take, and I do not care how you live your life, just do not make me pay for your live style and mistakes that you made. That is socially liberal.

 

Folks who negotiate the best price possible for privately funded infanticide for hire.

 

I'd just say this. When folks describe themselves as social liberals, at least I have no intention of ascribing a position on socialist programming. Social liberalism is classic political liberalism, not socialism. As in the affirmation of rights, and yes, responsibilities, of individuals. Perhaps they don't teach that this way in schools these days. Likely not, as the definition of social liberalism has been highjacked by the tyranny of the progressive folk who demand that everyone suffer equally in their quagmire of social justice...

So, what sounds shallow to me are folks who so grossly mischaracterize or purposefully bait/troll as a conversation starter.

 

Thank you, Right. That is one way of looking at "socially liberal."

 

I guess that has something to do with so-called right-to-life issues.

Lots of other threads for that. Not interested in it here.

 

Thanks for the response, Doc. Sorry I hit the nerve so hard.

 

No worries. Perhaps what we could do now is describe progressivism. Let's start from the perspective of extortion. Thoughts?

 

That's because you have no clue what socially liberal means. Social safety nets are fiscally liberal. No fiscal conservative supports them.
Freedom of speech, right to privacy, due process, personal liberty etc., are socially liberal. Sorry about your confusion

 

I agree with your stance.
I want healthcare for all.
I feel nobody should starve or be homeless in America.
That's the social side - the fiscal side says I want that paid for - unlike the Iraq war, for example.
I want sound and proven fiscal policies - not a re-run of the failed "trickle-down" malarky.
The "GOOD OLD DAYS" the GOP longs for had personal tax rates that went up to 85% in the top bracket - and there were still rich people.
Greed is killing America.
I love the hypocritical "christian" who will give to a charlatan preacher in a thousand-dollar suit, but not give for their fellow man in taxes.

 

The area of the "progressive agenda" that I find (more than) appealing...is the need for safety net programs. I expect any candidate for public office that I support to be committed to defending and expanding the safety net programs now in existence...and to devising new safety net programs that I see becoming necessary because of the diminished value of human labor due to technological advancement.

The "extortion" nonsense probably is a cute American conservative slap at taxation to safety net ends.

I do not consider it extortion. I consider the safety net sphere to be an appropriate function of government...and raising the revenues to support it to be appropriate also.

 

Thank you for sharing your version of what it means to be socially liberal. It certainly is something to consider. As you probably realize, there are others that are quite different from what you suggest.

I appreciate your sorrow...and offer mine for your confusion in return.

 

Thanks, Vet. Once again we seem to be on the same page.

 

Beg your pardon. Abortion is a social liberal panacea and private funding of a skillfully negotiated fee for service excites fiscal conservatives. Be clearer the next time you want to discuss social liberal - fiscal conservative

 

Great minds think alike.

 

You mean I was wrong when I suggested your comment, "Folks who negotiate the best price possible for privately funded infanticide for hire"...has something to do with right-to-life issues?

Damn. I was certain I was correct.

 

When it involves spending tax dollars, the word fiscal applies. Still confused?

 

We seemed to have achieved that goal in the late 1990's.

We had social programs and a budget surplus.

Then the GOP got in..........

 

Their need to destroy is incredible.

The need of this latest incarnation to destroy...is beyond incredible.

The Trump administration is acting like the Taliban destroying ancient monuments.

 

I've always considered "fiscal conservative, social liberal" to be a dead-end. If you support liberal social policies, you have no reason not to support paying for them, so you end up being a fiscal liberal as well. If you want to be a fiscal conservative, you have to be a social conservative as well. Don't want to pay for abortions? Be against abortion. Don't want to pay for welfare? Be against welfare. Don't want to pay for health care for everybody? Be against socialized medicine.

No one is starving in America. The biggest health risk to the poor in America these days is obesity. Of those who are homeless, 1/3 are mentally ill, 1/3 are alcohol or drug addicts, leaving just 1/3 who are homeless from other causes. While 1.6 million people a year will be homeless, most of those are temporary, many getting a new place within weeks, leaving just 124,000 long-term homeless people, one third of which is just 41,000 homeless who aren't that way because of mental illness or drug abuse. The "safety net" has become a hammock for way too many people as it is. Making it more comfy will only make the situation worse.

Seriously? The only reason there was a budget surplus was because the GOP got in, Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress balanced the budget. You don't really believe Bill Clinton would have ever submitted a balanced budget without a Republican Congress, do you? Even if he had, no Democrat Congress would have ever passed it. George W. Bush is a good example of how being a social liberal turns into being a fiscal liberal. He came into office with a balanced budget, a booming economy, and a favorable Congress and managed to destroy it all with liberal spending programs. And Democrats have the nerve to call him a conservative.

 

Comparing Donald Trump wanting to protect our country from ISIS to ISIS is just asinine.

 

Supposing that my comment of "the Taliban" is referring to ISIS...is actually asinine.

They are enemies, Smith.

C'mon. Check stuff out before making a fool of yourself.

 

You were wrong when you set up the thread as a straw man with all the windup instead of simply asking what people mean by it. On the chance that your OP was a sincere effort to begin a discussion, here are my opinions:

1. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are useful shorthand in the now only, are not political philosophies or theories, rapidly become too abstract to mean anything in even moderately remote time. For example, by today's understanding, JFK would be considered a very conservative president in many ways and Richard Nixon would be considered "liberal" in many ways. The terms are really only useful in the now, and as shorthand for larger, more specific -campaign platforms- that people have presumably read and understood specifically before applying the shorthand terms.
2. Removing the shorthand leads us right to the door of one answer to your question: whether a person supports this or that government action, policy or program and why must necessarily be a specific inquiry and case by case to be meaningful. Whether someone is "fiscally conservative or liberal" or "socially conservative or liberal" is not an inquiry likely to produce any useful information.
3. For example, many people could say "I support federal decriminalization of marijuana, but not federal aid programs" (or vice versa) or "I support food programs where the food provided is strictly limited/entirely unlimited" or "I support only local safety nets/only state safety nets/only central safety nets to X, Y, Z degree." All of those people could say "I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal" and without further inquiry, we really wouldn't know much about their actual politics. So why not start from the specific and do away with the useless generalizations in the first steps?

Many people, self included, have little problem with paying for more local social spending, where those who are responsible for its implementation are locally accountable, locally elected and the nature, cost/benefit, results of the programs are locally transparent. As programs become more centralized, they become more corrupt, more expensive, less competently administered and more likely to benefit a permanent, entrenched bureaucratic/civil servant class rather than either the taxpayers who pay for it or the target groups. Many people, self included, have become so jaded by government lies, corruption, expense, failure and lack of results over decades that they innately distrust anything the government or related says about pretty much anything.

We believe the private sector, warts and all, is a FAR better engine of progress than any government ever can or will be, primarily because it is a voluntary system as opposed to a violent fiat system. Also, despite rafts of gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-plaintiff lawyer-MSM Complex to the contrary re: "the failures of capitalism," it has an irrefutable, fact-based history of success evidenced by how obscenely rich even the poor in the US are by world historical standards. At the same time, the alternatives have a well-documented history of abject, bloody, criminal, oppressive failure in case after case. Some are completely fine with local spending at the same time, spending they can vote with their feet to escape if it is unjust, unlike central spending. So the level of centralization and uniformity of application become necessary context for assessing people's true level of support or not for social programs.

My opinion is that a vast majority of Americans are charitably minded, and willing to give freely to those truly in need, but that generous nature is tempered in mature private sector adults by skepticism gained over decades of experience about the motives, competence and sincerity of especially central government. The history of the massive expenses, massive failures and lack of meaningful results of central welfare state power over time evidence that this attitude is not "stinginess" but a rational response by otherwise generous people.

 

Thank you for questioning my motives for the thread, Sanskrit, and for the rest of your response.

When I speak of people who describe themselves as "fiscal conservative, but social liberal"...what I actually mean is, "people who describe themselves as "fiscal conservative, but social liberal."

There are people who do that...exactly that way. (A person doing it today in another thread motivated me to ask this question.)

I explained that, in the past, I interpret that to mean, "I recognize the value of the safety net programs progressives champion...but I just don't want to pay for them."

Just trying to get some information from people to see if that interpretation is off base.

Jury is still out...but as I said...thanks for you comments.

 

Ditto, except I would add for myself a concern to creating a Just Society. With a prison population approaching 2.5 million, something is seriously wrong.