In the U.S., does the socially liberal, fiscally conservative citizen have a political party to look to these days?

They belong as an Independent. They should pick and choose during local and Federal elections according to their principals.

IMHO, people should stop dividing themselves along party lines and vote for candidates. Then, they should hold those candidates accountable.

The Libertarian party is probably the closest fit for such a person. Unfortunately their candidates are rarely viable options in elections. Further exacerbating the problem, Republican candidates have moved very far to the right, and Democratic candidates have moved (albeit to a much lesser degree) to the left.

It would be a huge benefit to our political system if we had 3 or more major political parties.

The Democrats.

Bear in mind that Clinton actually balanced the budget. Saint Ronald Reagan was the original sinner when it came to deficit spending. Obama is spending a lot, but that is largely because we are in an emergency and economists say we need to (many economists would argue we haven’t spent enough). It’s not ideology.

Both parties whine about the deficit when they are out of power. Remember how the Democrats constantly bitched about the deficit when Bush was president? They did so every bit as much as the Republicans are doing now. Dems didn’t like money being spent on wars and rich tax breaks they didn’t support, and Republicans don’t like money being spent on social programs they don’t support. (They certainly had zero problem running up the debt under Reagan and the Bushes.)

The rhetoric from both sides is often purely crocodile tears. So, look to the party that has actually delivered on balancing the budget.

I think you need to read up on the Libertarians a bit more. They are for smaller government, very small government. I’m about as far right as you get and I was a registered libertarian for years. Individual rights are their mainstay but government programs are not. You want health care, the government is not involved. you want Social Security, the government is not involved, you want welfare or unemployment, the government is not involved. You want regulations on virtually anything, you won’t get it. There are reasons that the Libertarian candidates are not viable.

Libertarians are pretty hard core. Virtually no one agrees with a candidate on all issues. Whether Democrat or Republican, you need to find the issues most important to you and vote for those issues, regardless of which party the candidate represents.

@Qingu – But right now, isn’t it true that neither party is balancing the budget? Looking back about a decade seems to be disingenuous.

@Jaxk – Being “fiscally conservative” doesn’t mean that one automatically mandate that one mean that one doesn’t recognize that the government might have a place in putting certain responsibilities in the hands of the government. There are many forms of libertarianism that recognize the social place of government – therefore, a technical alignment with the libertarian party doesn’t mean that one associate themselves with the practical incarnation of libertarianism as it presently represents itself.

No. That is why I’m an independent.

Why does one need a party? Anyhow, the closest thing which is described by you wold be the Libertarian party.

@iamthemob, right now we are still clawing our way out of a recession and every credible economist says spending is necessary to make up for the demand slack. Do you disagree that there are rather extraordinary circumstances today that would warrant going further into debt to deal with? (Unlike, for example, the circumstances surrounding Medicare Part D or Bush’s tax cuts)

Also, it’s not like Obama’s administration is radically different from Clinton’s; he’s using many of the same exact advisers, and certainly seems based on the same pragmatic, centrist ideology.

@Qingu – I do not – but I do discredit assessments that seem to state that they can predict economic circumstances economic circumstances as they will be a decade from now as if it accounts for particular advancements in both technology and psychological participation as the current assessments do – and that’s where my problem is.

I’m afraid I don’t follow ye.

@Qingu – the problem is trying to determine programs now which will bring about the very fiscal situations we want ten years from now – how do we know that they’re right? And why should we trust that they are?

@iamthemob, again, I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. Are you referring to like the CBO’s projections for various programs’ effects on the long-term debt? They aren’t perfect, but they’re the best guesses we have, and based on a lot of evidence (and lack of partisanship).

Here’s a thought. Maybe instead of thinking aobut this in terms of parties or the traditional political axis, we instead rank our priorities. Here’s some noteworthy ones, in no particular order.

• Balance the budget in the near-term
• Prevent total collapse of financial system
• Invade other countries to promote democracy
• Fund a basic social safety net
• Cut taxes for bottom 95% or so
• Cut taxes for wealthiest 5%

How would you rank these priorities?

Libertarian.

@tedd how have the democrats moved to the left? policy wise Obama is to the right of Reagan in many things. As a matter of fact ( excuse me Obama apologists ), Obama is more of a republican President as he caters to them on every issue.
When there is a public finance for campaigns you will see candidates that are truly socially liberal, and fiscal conservatives. But I am guessing that is not going to happen any time soon because all candidates are bought by corporations. Ok, most candidates.

Welcome brother!
I am socially liberal, and fiscally conservative (with the exception of drug use, I am a Nazi about that).
I feel I am an independant, but I vote democrat because most elected Republicans are socially dickish, and in my state independants can’t get elected to save themselves.

@iamthemob can you explain how someone can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I’ve heard others say this and I’ve never really understood their explanations. To me, it seems contradictory. I mean I sorta get what you mean, but it stills seems to me to be an oxymoron.

Sadly, I think the best this demographic can do is register as nonpartisan or independent. Based upon the few declared Libertarians I know, there’s an income requirement to join that party… :p Seriously, good luck finding a Libertarian who makes under $75K/year.

@mrmijunte It’s hard to explain. But as a devout Democrat and liberal myself, who has studied politics of the last 50 years in our country… I can tell you we have drifted to the left.

@bkcunningham – A “socially liberal” standpoint, for me, means limiting legislation that criminalizes or outlaws behavior that is solely about consenting adults individual behavior (e.g., limiting government interference in personal lives). A “fiscally conservative” standpoint is about making certain that government spending is done for programs and on legislation that is both reasonable in terms of the spending and on programs that are reasonably targeted to and actually do produce the results that they are meant to.

A socially liberal standpoint does not discount welfare programs, therefore, which may seem fiscally liberal – but it’s about smart programs and not any programs.

It’s a theoretical impossibility to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

The social liberal protects people from the natural consequences of their immorality. This often involves subsidies, which are expensive. The expenses increase dramatically over time as more people respond to the incentives that the social liberal set up by indulging in more destructive behavior.

The socially liberal state can never be cheap. A social liberal thinks that wealth should be “spread around” through government programs like welfare, and others. How can that view be reconciled with a fiscal conservative who recognizes personal property beyond the purview of the state? It can’t.

@cackle I don’t agree with your definition of Social Liberal.
As @iamthemob said “A “socially liberal” standpoint, for me, means limiting legislation that criminalizes or outlaws behavior that is solely about consenting adults individual behavior (e.g., limiting government interference in personal lives).” I think that personal choices that don’t hurt anyone else are normally considered socially y liberal.
I also think that society should not have to pay for someones socially liberal life choices. That is where my fiscal conservatism kicks in.

You forgot to quote his next part. @iamthemob wrote, “A socially liberal standpoint does not discount welfare programs,”

@cackle – And welfare programs are not clearly fiscally liberal, as there is nothing to say that a social safety net of some sort does not produce a budget that creates more revenue and less spending (e.g., unemployment cushions actually increase spending as nearly all UE benefits are spent in the economy).

You didn’t answer my question. How can the view of welfare be reconciled with a fiscal conservative who recognizes personal property beyond the purview of the state?

@cackle – it depends on if you are talking about a person who believes that all personal property is beyond the purview of the state or whether there are certain concepts of property that are, which those are, etc.

Either way, you can define “fiscally conservative” and “socially liberal” so that they are mutually exclusive and therefore there would be no right answer to your question. If that’s what you’re doing, then you’re not choosing to answer my question in good faith – and therefore, I will choose not to answer yours at all. ;-)

That’s what I thought. Nice cop-out.

@cackle – The credit for the cop-out belongs wholly to you. It’s lovely that you find the need to be fundamentally contrarian – but if you want to reset the terms of the OP, as the OP, I don’t feel the need to play your game – and won’t accept blame because you want to try to make me play.

Your school-yard antics are best used elsewhere. ;-)

You speak of liberty, yet you want my taxes to fund other destructive behavior. You speak of liberty, yet you want to allow the systematic slaughter of innocent human life(abortion).

Your question is fundamentally flawed.

@cackle I didn’t forget, you left off this:
“it’s about smart programs and not any programs”

@wilma wrote “I also think that society should not have to pay for someones socially liberal life choices. That is where my fiscal conservatism kicks in.”

wrote “it’s about smart programs and not any programs”

Hahahaha, you just can’t stop the contradictions can you?

@wilma – I suggest you take the same tactic I find I must do when dealing with @cackle‘s contrarian accusations – when s/he talks, all I hear is.

Look, I don’t care if abortionists want to kill innocent human life. I don’t care if junkies want to destroy themselves and others. I don’t care what homosexuals do. It’s their business and they can have the right to do it. However, just don’t expect me or anyone else to pay for the consequences of these actions. In other words, no tax dollars for you. No safety nets. No healthcare, no welfare, no public schooling, no pensions, no research. Nothing will be there to help you and support your actions. You will be solely responsible for your actions.

That’s the only way social liberalism and fiscally conservatism will work.

Amen.

Amen.

Speaking of…

@cackle Correct me if I’m wrong, but technically you believe none of us are real and we only exist as manifestations of your own consciousness. If that’s the case, you’re just arguing with some discontent part of your being right now. It’s entirely up to you what we say right now, not us. We have no will, only the life your mind creates for us.

And by the way, I appreciate the righteous ping pong game you allowed me to have at my buddy’s house Saturday. I don’t appreciate the hangover though. And you could have not had my other friend’s car towed. He was only parked there for a couple minutes.

You seem to not understand at all what a solipsist is then…Re-read the philosophy. When you’re done reading books on metaphysics, phenomenology, ontology, epistemology, only then may you comment.

I’m not going to read books, just the definition of solipsism. Besides, this is clearly what you’d prefer I do anyways.

Well then I’m not going to argue with someone that states logical fallacies.

@cackle it seems to many of us you’d argue with most anyone in fluther, including yourself

@cackle Do we have to read all the books, or just the Wikipedia pages as seems to be your method of gaining knowledge?

PS – All – I’m sorry – this derailing was partially my doing. Anyone who wants to get back on topic (and actually addressing the question) is more than welcome.

I provide a Wikipedia reference for the lay men of this site. How does this seem to be my method of gaining knowledge? Keep on assuming things. You’re only making yourself look bad.

There is nothing left to address about this topic. There is only one answer here. You can be socially liberal but you will not have any government programs. That is the only social liberalism and fiscal conservatism there is. There is no party that shares this ideology. Any other way is a contradiction as I pointed out earlier. Any politician who joins the left in demolishing conventional morality and promises tight budgets at the same time is a liar.

@cackle – There is only one answer here.

Of course – as long as it’s yours.

Anybody else notice how aptly named the main detractor here is? Just sayin’

@JilltheTooth – I totally picture her/him with a computer on one side of the table, and a bubbling cauldron and crystal ball on the other…

Last comment.

It is impossible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal because it requires that you choose those conservative personality attributes to be within the people you hire as well. We saw what a lack of integrity social liberals have in the bank leadership ranks – giving out loans to people with no money because socialist politicians demanded it. In addition, because they could get away with it, they came up with all these money products are shams. They crashed the system with their social liberalism and have given the US a bad name as far as integrity goes in front of the world. A bail out came along with the social liberal operating and running a fiscal conservative profession.

If you are a social liberal, you can not be a fiscal conservative because amorality leads to disease and the inability to care for yourself and your offspring which increases the welfare rolls and crime. Total social freedom (non-judgementalism) requires a large police and welfare state to manage those who do not choose to live morally in life and who are not taught to live morally.

Finally, the political correctness of liberalism is suicidal and is undermining the quality and success of all professions in the US – from business, science and medicine to journalism and University and public school education. We see political correctness – social liberalism in the destruction of all standards (judgement) of behavior, honor, loyality and trustworthiness. Standards are easily dismissed in the name of a personal or political advantage- the end justifies the means. In social liberalism – equality means social justice and social justice means socialism.

One more thing. Social liberals don’t believe in voluntarily assisting someone when they are down and need help – community and family ties and responsibilities. They give less to charities and volunteer less to help others privately(this has been shown in study after study). They expect the government to handle these problems in society or in the case of libertarians, often they just expect that everyone will take care of themselves which is often not possible during hard times.

Constitutional freedom and economic freedom go hand in hand with a society that is socially conservative because moral education and expectations give free people the best chance to succeed on their own – in freedom. Social liberalism guarentees social disease and abuse.

Amen.

I would’ve gone with Blah, blah, blah, Ginger there, myself.

Guess you’re keeping that tab open, eh buddy…

I did regoogle it that time. ;-)

Somebody should send this to SmashtheState.

@cackle Dude, you said “Last Comment” up there? Seriously, walk away now

@iamthemob : In spite of the chicken-noise, this is a GQ.

@SpatzieLover,

It was suppose to be part of my last comment. I forgot to write the point.

“Promoting homosexuality to children.”

Ahh, the cry of the “homosexual agenda” again. I believe it was the cry of another user…

@cackle – it does seem like you apply your absolute subjectivity even to your own meaning of “last post.” Sure, “I forgot.”

And what an important point it was! ~

No cry, just the facts.

Aren’t you done with your last posts?

Some of the biggest lies are based on “facts.”

Of course, again, you don’t believe in facts – until they serve your agenda.

“Response moderated (Flame-Bait)”

Keep flagging me, it won’t help. The story was covered by all the news medias. The recordings are court evidence. It’s available for everyone to listen too as of 2009.

I’m thinking the term “last post” is a little beyond this user’s comprehension.
BTW, @cackle , the word is “media”. Adding the “s” relegates it to the department of redundancy department.

@JilltheTooth,

Why are you so fixated to my “last comment” on my previous post? Why are you pointing out a grammatical error I made? You contributed absolutely nothing to this thread other then your failed attempts to get a reaction out of me with your petty indirect sarcastic insults rather then arguing my points or contributing some of your own. Pretty sad to say the least.

[Mod Says:] Okay let’s stop getting personal here. Remember to disagree without being disagreeable

Please stay on topic which is “In the U.S., does the socially liberal, fiscally conservative citizen have a political party to look to these days?”

If you have nothing beneficial to add to the conversation please resist the temptation to post and move on to another question.