Would a political party that is economically speakign left (pro-social services, protectionist but also anti-immigrant) but socially conservative get a widespread following in the United States among the working class (both white and black).
On an episode of 30 Rock, Liz Lemon’s moron boyfriend is asked about his politics. He responds, “Social conservative, fiscal liberal.”
I’m having a hard time imagining an individual coming to the positions you describe, never mind a widespread following.
Why not? Its the political position of most blacks and a lot of working class whites.
Anti-immigrant is “left” now?
I meant what I said literally: I have a hard time imagining it. Because it seems absurd.
There might be people who see the world that way, but you’ll have to work at it to convince me this could be a major trend. I don’t personally recall running into this type of political stance much.
The only example I can think of (and it may not be a good one) was the opposition to gay marriage in California and Washington DC by some of the African American community. That seemed to be mostly religious types as I recall, so I’m not sure how it folds into the political position you’re talking about.
The worst of both worlds. An idea truly stunning in the depth and scope of its complete and utter lack of any redeeming qualities.
Not “left” as in your average “progressive” vegan New Ager from San Francisco but yes it is in the interests of the working class in America to limit immigration (which is exactly what many labour unions in the 19th Century wanted)
Of course if they were slightly more anti-immigrant they’d begin to resemble the BNP or France’s National Front.
Inicdentally as a sidenote, in foreign policy I’d assume this party would be neo-isolationist, preferring not to intervene-be it Bosnia, Iraq, or Libya.
Senator Byrd of West Virginia described himself as a fiscal liberal and social conservative. It seemed to work for him, if you call nearly six decades of being elected to Congress as “success.”
It really is relatively rare IME. I have a friend who falls roughly into this category ( though more social moderate than full-blown social conservative ), but he’s an outlier in many ways and he came to his views in a convoluted fashion. Also he isn’t particularly anti-immigrant or isolationist.
I’d have to agree that such a party would probably not be pulling in big numbers in this country.
Still, it’s a party that likes high taxes and opposes sport fucking.
Australia has the Democratic Labor Party. They don’t do all that well.
Parties like you describe often end up as nationalist exercises, caught up in identity politics & stuck with enemies by dint of ethnicity.
Apart from the anti-immigrant portion, yes, it would have something of a natural base among black and first-to-second-generation Americans. I’ve always thought that mix was a lot more natural than the current American alignment — after all, if you support the government having a larger role in the economy, why would you support it having a smaller role in society?
Actually, now that I think about it, the US arguably had that party (again, minus the anti-immigrant stuff) until the Civil Rights Movement, did it not? Or were the Democrats socially liberal before they were pro-civil rights?
On edit: it’s also worth pointing out that the Catholic Church has always taking roughly that position (again, minus the anti-immigrant stuff). Such a party would stand a good chance of winning elections in a majority-Catholic country.
Well he supported abortion at least later in his career so I wouldn’t call him a social conservative.
“Sports fucking”? 
On the other hand Christian Democrats (although foreign policy-wise more internationalist) fulfill much of the criteria. Not to mention that the National Front and other European nationalist parties. Indeed arguably communism in the current Chinese form or old Soviet form fulfills the criteria-they did not have exactly enlightened policy toward homosexuals.
(ETA: A Catholic party might be inclined to drop the protectionist stuff, too — Catholicism does have a pretty substantial cosmopolitan twist to it.)
Mike Huckabee is close to what you describe. He never attracted much support outside of the very religious from the central states. The establishment Republicans hated him, and he attracted little to no support from Democrats, so no.
No. Sport fucking. Singular. Means getting laid because fucking is fun. No intent to make a baby–in fact, proactively taking steps to prevent conception. No heavy emotional involvement. Just naked, sweaty, fun. Often accompanied by copious amounts of alcohol and/or other intoxicating substances. Ya meet a gal at a party or bar, chat her up, maybe dance with her a little, both of you get hammered, then you go somewhere and fuck like bunnies.
What about Alaska? Socially conservative, but they sure do love that socialist, wealth-redistributing Alaskan Oil Fund.
I don’t think anybody wants to actually ban fornication, although there are many people morally opposed to it. Not to mention it may have bad side-effects (ie STDs for example or more unlikely guy or girl you pick up is some sort of Jeffrey Dahmer). In particularly AIDS-ridden countries, it may make sense for governments to discourage this.
Governments need to stay the hell out of bedrooms. Long as everybody involved are consenting adults, it’s none of the government’s business.
This POV is fairly common in the lower-middle class blue collar suburbs of Rust Belt cities. Heavily Catholic, and heavily unionized.