Is it oxymoranic to be "liberal" on social issues and "conservative" on ..

fiscal issues?

No, it's called libertarianism.

Libertarianism doesn't advocate the imposition of morality on individuals, but at the same time, it does not give citizens unfairly victimised by the intolerance or moral puritanism of others any sort of redress.

For example:

A libertarian would support same-sex marriage, but would not believe that a restaurant should be forced to hire a homosexual or that a landlord should be prohibited to discriminate against racial minorities.

Libertarians dont belive thats its appropriate to initiate force in general (or in principle). Most would interpret the government control of private property to be facism (which by chance is the definition of facism).

It's like shaking your hand and stabbing you in the back at the same time.

'Progressive Conservatives'....they are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.

Have what you want...just make sure you can pay for it.

The PCs have little unifying ideology. Some of them are almost as left-wing as the NDP, while others would be less likely to get my vote than virtually anyone in CCRAP.

I note that today you were even promoting the CA as a left-wing group...when they are the total opposite. Far right-wing in fact.

The PC party was around before confederation in 1867...their unifying ideology is well known.

What's your game exactly?

I just learned recently that many of its members were formerly Socreds or New Democrats, making me surprised that they're as far right-wing as they are.

card carrying NDP...just people who may have voted that way in the past.

A few nutbars from every party in fact.

Saskatchewaners -- who reside in the province most opposed to same-sex marriage in Canada -- routinely vote NDP provincially and Reform/CCRAP federally, as has B.C. in the 1990s and 2000.

This can make quite a bit of sense: Social/moral issues are far more federal than they are provincial, you don't have to be a member of NDP Canada to be a provincial member, provincial NDPs do not have Western alienation working against them, as they are Western themselves, many socialist movements originated in the West (particularly Winnipeg, MB...But it's remained loyally progreesive for decades), and CCRAP/Reform can win federally by playing the social conservative/Western alienation card.

That's exactly my stand. We're very fiscally conservative around our house. It only means that we have extra money to do things we otherwise would not. Stuff like retiring early, having funds to help take care of elderly relatives and all the fun things as well as contributing to charitable and political causes.

I don't agonize about paying taxes and I like it that we don't stroke our bank account statements like Golum admiring his "Precious-s-s-s". I get much more excited about a buy one and get one free sale.

... in the hands of the wealthy, and only use social conservativism as a wedge to get poor and working class people to vote against their best fiscal interests, in my mind, if you are (like Arnold) a social liberal who will further the concentration of wealth through fiscal conservativism/fascism (see Enron & Lay, regressive taxation). then you aren't really a liberal.

You see folks, it's all about the money. The social issues are window dressing to get elected. You're socially liberal if you're a CA Republicans,and you're sociall conservative to get the religious vote if you're a GA Republican. Don't be fooled. All the Republicans, no matter where they're from, are on the same page when it comes to dismantling the New Deal and destroying progressive taxation. I don't have any time for Democrats who are nothing more than CA Republicans and aren't on the liberal page on the money issues.

This has been a bone of contention with me for some time..A moderate Republican (Scwarzenneger0 liberal on social issue --fiscal conservative; DLC--Moderate on Social Issues--Fiscal conservative.
We have permitted both parties to maniplate the definitions until now a DLC will give a few more crumbs than a republican. I am not bashing here just stating facts. When it comes to giving taxcuts to the wealthy you can depend on a few to step up and do their part.
The last Taxcut the Moderate Republicans refuse to join and support their own President. Three DLCers jumped over and helped him get it over the finsh line. The difference has become degrees difference no ideological difference. Majority of DLC saw this as too far to the right but there are always a few who cannot distingusih what makes a
Conservative Democrat and Moderate Republican. The fiscal issues affect people daily and have long term conseqences.

Does not matter how rich - they do not see "sharing" as a matter for Gov. And then those corporate hands do feed the GOP so well.

I believe "Never bite the hand that feeds you - and always cut the arm off the hand trying for a crumb on your plate" defines the corporate run government of the "compassionate conservative"

I couldn't agree more

Conventional wisdom has it very few are 100% straight or 100% gay.

I believe in it. :)

under the current usage of 'liberal & 'conservative'.

However, if they are used in the original context, I believe it is a good notion.

The key is to maintain Social priorities, while maintaining some of the conservative priorities. This would be, 'intelligent spending', something not seen in the US since before the Civil War. The idea is to ensure there is no graft and overcharges, in essence, getting what you pay for wuithout being raked over the coals. Since this particular admin took office, the complete opposite has come about. Cutting taxes, (income), and paying out more that can be recovered is fiscally insane. The problem is, the priorities of this adimistration are only to make their friends rich at public expense, it is that simple. Whewreas, if the money were spent more wisely, and there were severe penalties for those that abused the system, we could finance both social projects and defense. There might be enough money to help the infrastructure as well.

But as long as the 'liberal' & 'conservative' mantra's of today... it would be impossible.

I tend to be that way. I don't think that money should be spent willy nilly, but I also don't believe that it is the government's job to legislate morality. Also, it doesn't mean that I don't believe in government assistance programs. I'm a firm believer that education should be free, similar to the structure of California.

What I do believe is that non violent drug offenders should not be in prison, and that we should NOT be spending 400 billion dollars on military projects.

You will find quickly that that socio/economic issues are just that, socio/economic.

Example:

Legalization of Pot is considered a "liberal" social issue:

Yet, if pot is legalized, it is then regulated which requires public spending. If pot remains criminalized, it is made so through enforcement which requires government spending.

Abortion Rights is considered a "liberal" social issue:

Yet, if abortion remains legal, it is then regulated which requires public spending. If abortion is criminalized, it is made so through enforcement which requires government spending.

Legalization of Prostitution is considered a "liberal" social issue:

Yet, if prostitution is legalized, it is then regulated which requires public spending. If prostitution remains criminalized, it is made so through enforcement which requires government spending.

A good example of the pretense of being "liberal" on social issues and "conservative" on fiscal issues would be found in President Bush's recent visit to Africa and his promise to increase funding for fighting that disease there only to return stateside and pull back from giving the promised funding.

Public schooling to educate each new generation requires massive public spending.

Social Security to prevent seniors from living on the streets and begging for food requires massive public spending.

There's nothing more transparent than a well-heeled individual desiring for the convenient fig-leaf of pretense that he/she "cares" about "social" issue, yet refuses to help fund the solution to the social ill. Today, we call this "compassionate conservatism".

And only hurts people.

If pot is legal, pot can be taxed. The tax revenues will fund its regulation, and if they're set high enough, there will be surplus tax revenues for other necessary functions of government.

And I guarantee that you'll never hear Sean Hannity complaining that the pot tax is too low.

Being socially Liberal is being tolerant of individuals and demanding full rights for the People.

Being fiscally Conservative is being intolerant of ever expanding government programs and the subsequent spending to keep them growing.


The neo-cons we are faced with these days are facists in that they want to hold down individuals, socially and financially, whilst boosting government power to feather their own nests. Liberals, otoh, seek a government which helps society as a whole by ensuring everyone's Rights.

The two stances are as different as apples and oranges, and should not be used to discriminate Liberals from Conservatives.

If it means pay as you go, deficits in economic recessions and surpluses in periods of growth then perhaps so.

If fiscal conservative equates to something like trickle-down economics then no, the ideologies are opposed.

I see socially liberal as much more than libertarian. A social liberal takes an activist role in promoting equality and expanding opportunity and does not leave the work to market forces alone.

This takes cash. You have to invest in human capital.

If it means pay as you go, deficits in economic recessions and surpluses in periods of growth then perhaps so.

If fiscal conservative equates to something like trickle-down economics then no, the ideologies are opposed.

Yes, those are the possible meanings, and usually the stupid game is played so that some outer fringe yapper attacks a Democrat who is a fiscal conservative clearly according to that first definition by stubbornly and repetitively claiming that the Democrat supports trickle-down economics instead because "he's a fiscal conservative, he said so himself". It gets sooooo booooooooring...

Because when the government pays down debt, it has more capacity for social spending--assuming that's what you mean by social issues.

It's like your household budget. When you pay off all your credit cards and build savings, you have more leeway to give to charitable causes, and do the upkeep and maintenance, or whatever. You have more control over your life. Also, as you establish good credit, the interest rate you have to pay on an any money you borrow goes down.

I'm not much of an economist, but I think that's the general idea.

economy! Ever since the birth of the foolish trickle down crap where we hand all our money to the rich people and they pretend they are going to use it to stimulate the economy while depositing it in offshore accounts, we have been in dire straights. Conservatives CANNOT handle money.

Hello, they are simply stealing it!

Fiscally responsible? (Fair taxation, responsible spending, adequate social programs, little government waste)

Definitely.

Fiscally conservative?

Pro-big business, corporate welfare, few social services, tax cuts on the wealthy, etc...


In theory yes, but the ideologically that fuels conservative fiscal policies makes it more or less impossible.

That's a big umbrella term. Smaller government? Fewer programs? I think you can be in favor of the former without compromising the latter.

you can want social programs but still be conservative by insisting they be fully funded. That's different than saying "gee I support these programs but we can't raise taxes"

Total transparency, as little fat as possible. Does that make me a conservative? I don't know. I know I believe that the sole function of government is the welfare of its citizens.

I think I dislike labels.

Find a 'fiscal conservative' who didn't or doesn't 'conserve' on the backs of working people. People who try to conserve on the backs of the wealthy aren't 'fiscal conservatives', they're 'socialists', 'godless communists', 'dangerous radicals', 'un-American', 'lunatics', etc.

If by 'fiscal conservative' you mean one who believes that governemnt should, except in times of national emergency (e.g.) live within its means, then there is no inconsistency. Runaway public debt shrinks the available capital market and can lead to inflation, and inflation disproportiontely affects those least able to counter its negative impact, that is the poor.

In short, there is nothing wrong with saying "That's a great new idea/program, etc.; now, how are we going to finance it?". :)

The first law of charity is this:

You've got to have something to give.

Bill Clinton proved again what JFK asserted long ago: "A rising tide lifts all boats." A fiscally conservative approach to government makes good sense and boosts a strong economy--contrary to what the supply siders preach. A strong economy helps everybody. But especially it helps those at the bottom rungs of society.

Fiscal conservatism, making sure government budgets are balanced, building a strong economy, provides the wherewithal for government to provide the services needed because the economic system does not address all of society's needs. This is what our founding father's established government for to begin with: to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves.

There's is confusion, in this day and age, over what it means to be fiscally conservative.

The most accurate definition is that a fiscal conservative believes the gov't shouldn't spend more than it takes in. However, the current thought is that this philosophy includes lower taxes and cutting spending. That's not true. That's governmental and social conservativism.

If you believe that the gov't should live within its means, but are willing to RAISE TAXES to a degree that closes any budget shortfall, then that's still fiscally conservative, because you would wish to obviate borrowing.

Of course, conservatives would disagree with this, and their "tax and spend" rhetoric proves it. But, one can be socially liberal, wish to see the least among us be helped, wish to see the arts promoted, wish to see education funded, wish to see gov't fund medical research, and still be fiscally conservative. The difference is the funding procedure.

A liberal is willing for taxes to be raised if needed. A conservative is not. Borrowing money, based upon possible future revenue enhancements, is not a conservative view. It's speculative!

This is one of the fundamental paradoxes of conservative thought.
The Professor

Just apply it to your own household. Say you want to take a trip to Europe(figurative social spending). Either you have enough income(taxes) to pay for it outright, or you can charge the trip on your credit card(deficit spending). If you pay for it outright it will cost you, let's say, $3000. If you charge the trip you will pay $4000 over time. You get your trip(social spending) either way but one is clearly more cost-effective than the other.

For example, I would advocate chopping the military in half, and I would say that is being fically conservative. Let the U.N have more power, we don't need to be world cop. Right wingers will say that you can't do that, we need to have the most powerful military in the world, maybe even more powerful than the other top 3 or 5 countries.

Also, to be socially liberal, while in theory should be live and let live, in practice may take money to fight conservative movements to restrict abortion, privacy, etc.

In general, there is no conflict between the two, just not cut and dried, and requires some tough choices. For example, in balancing the budget, we may have to cut back on a social program or two, but in so doing, we make it easier for following generations to live without a financial burden. And less financial burden for your kids is also social liberal, or is it fiscal conservative, hmmm ...