A social liberal/fiscal conservative is what we call a Democrat. A social conservative/fiscal lunatic is a Republican. A fiscal lunatic who holds no social opinions at all is usually called a libertarian.
I describe myself as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.
I believe that we have an obligation to help folks who need help. (That’s the social liberal side.) I also believe that we have to know how we’re going to pay for it. (That’s the fiscal conservative side.)
I think it often means, I want to be able to smoke dope and if my girl friend gets pregnant I want her to get an abortion but I don’t want to pay taxes. Basically a self centered philosophy.
I appreciate everybody’s input and the couple of jokes. A couple of responses I’m not interested in delving into, because if we don’t even have that common foundation of understanding we may never find ourselves on the same page. But I suppose that dilemma comes with the topic of libertarianism 
This, at least after Bill Clinton was first elected in 1992.
Depends on how one defines these things, particularly ‘fiscal conservatives.’ Does that mean ‘tries to get closer to a balanced budget’ or ‘tries to make government so small you can drown it in a bathtub’?
If the former, then the Dems are the social liberals/fiscal conservatives. They’re the social liberals because they’re against forcing a private moral code, or that of a particular religion, on the general population.
And they’re the fiscal conservatives (a) because they’ve been pressured into it (for some reason, the press always demands that they show how they’re gonna pay for their social programs, but nobody seriously expects the GOP to pay for its massive tax cuts), and (b) because anyone looks like a fiscal conservative next to a party that passes massive tax cuts without trying to pay for them.
If anything, this only underscores the wide range of different definitions that exist. I’ve often described myself as a social liberal and fiscal conservative and meant nothing like the definition above.
I mean it in the sense of supporting generally progressive values and strong social institutions like universal health care and a strong safety net for the disadvantaged, and “fiscal conservative” in my definition simply means much stronger accountability for government spending. It’s shocking that in so many cases even the most superficial audit will reveal profligate waste, taxpayer dollars flowing like water, and mounting deficits treated as inconsequential. Those two positions are perfectly compatible. The difference between that and many traditional conservatives is that (a) they argue for reduced spending but often don’t actually do it, (b) their first priority in controlling spending is to cut social spending, which is among the most important program spending, and (c) for some reason they see fit to impose draconian restrictions on social freedoms and human rights in areas like abortion, SSM, and civil liberties.
The problem with “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” is that it’s fundamentally a platitude that applies to most people, or at least most people believe applies to them. Consider what it means broken down.
“Socially liberal” more or less means that you’re in favor of rights. Well, unless someone openly professes themselves to be authoritarian, they’re probably going to say “sure, I’m in favor of social rights.” But the thing is, 10 years ago, one could be “socially liberal” and still be against gay marriage. Even people I’ve known who have views that most would be considered socially liberal have arguments about why that one thing is a special exception, whether it be for national safety or it’s somehow fundamentally wrong or evil or causes harm to other people.
And it’s similar with “fiscally conservative” because all it really means is that one doesn’t want the government to waste money. But ultimately, no one can agree on what programs the government has that are a waste of money and which ones are critical. Everyone wants the government to reduce the tax burden and be more efficient, but no one wants to give up a program that benefits them. Again, the only real way I could really see someone saying they’re not fiscally conservative is if they’re fundamentally in favor of vastly expanding government spending.
Originally, I heard libertarians often describe themselves that way, but I’ve since heard both fairly strong Democrats and Republicans describe themselves as such. So, regardless of what it’s initial intention was, it seems to be so vague these days as to be worthless.
The don’t-explain-the-joke joke on 30 ROCK was that Liz dated a guy who was such a loser, he identified as “social conservative, fiscal liberal.”
Should I take a wild guess which one you consider yourself to be?
It also should be pointed out that “fiscal conservative” dose not equal “stingy”. I give a large percentage of my income to charities - but only to charities that steward that money well, in accordance with their charter and limit waste. I can determine this via their legal filings and independent reviews. I’m more than willing to pay taxes, but I demand accountability in return. Unfortunately, as taxes have gone up accountability has gone down. That makes me not a happy taxpayer.
raises hand I’m a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I consider myself a moderate wrt US politics and US voters. Why am I like this? Well…because. 
Your take away is flawed, basically. Where do you get that fiscal conservative means one is not ok with any government regulation? And saying that social liberalism boils down to being ‘okay with your fellow citizens having their freedoms’ is laughable…what ‘freedoms’ are we talking about, exactly?
You are attempting to boil down a host of positions to a cartoon view…and not a good comic book or graphic novel, either, but one of those comics that used to come with your 1 cent bubble gum.
I understand your point but you’re over-simplifying to an extreme. Just because something is on a continuum doesn’t mean that one can’t describe a position on that continuum according to specific set of criteria.
No, the major distinction is that conservatives have typically believed – and many continue to believe – that it’s a fundamental job of government to preserve traditional social institutions and guard them against the “corrupting” influences of modern mores, otherwise society will fall apart, or something. Social liberals believe this is nonsense, and are consistent in their beliefs about civil liberties and limitations on the intrusiveness of government into our lives. Civil liberties respecting social institutions are just a way of formalizing those protections. Conservatives traditionally don’t believe in such protections at all, they believe society has an interest in controlling those institutions.
You’re right that at some point – be it 10, 20, or 30 years ago – gay marriage wasn’t even on the radar. Social liberalism referred to other things, like reproductive rights, or the right to marry inter-racially. The nature of mainstream social liberalism is that it embraced gay marriage when it became a relatively mainstream social issue. Conservatism did not, and in many cases still doesn’t.
In my view the distinction here is the degree of transparency and accountability the government should be required to have in budgeting the spending of taxpayer money. It should be hard to propose spending increases or new programs, and there should be a formal process of public consultation. There is a general attitude among governments at all levels today that money is to some extent essentially free, because in many ways it really is.
I am not sure why this concept is that hard.
I am fiscally conservative in that I believe there are limits on what the government ought to pay for. I also believe that the government ought to pay for it now as much as possible instead of borrowing and passing the debt on to future generations. Roads? Yep, those should be paid for. Military? Yep, gotta have one of those and that is a proper government function. Health care? Nope, not the governments job. Housing, once again, not the governments job. Art? Nope.
I disagree with Blaster Masters definition of fiscally conservative as ‘doesn’t want the government to waste money’. My problem with government spending isn’t just waste. There are many things that the government is paying for that I do not believe is the governments responsibility. There are programs that I think ought to be defunded by the government that do benefit me directly. Mainly arts/park programs locally. There are also some federal government programs that I do not think should exist that would directly impact my employer and my paycheck, though I am not going to go into detail about those.
I am socially liberal in that I believe what consenting adults do with each other is their own business. Gay marriage? Sure thing (a position I have held since high school when I first thought about it). Abortion? Rather confused on the issue myself but don’t want to ban it. Atheist? Me too. Immigration? Yep, let everyone in, with a couple caveats. Racism? Stupid and harmful to everyone. Etc.
Slee
Well, you could, but it’d probably be better to take an informed guess.
I don’t consider that to be “fiscal conservatism” (by my definition, anyway) but rather across-the-board general conservatism, because you’re not just talking about fiscal matters like accountability and balanced budgets, but about significant policy matters – and many of those policy matters are squarely in the realm of social issues – health care, subsidized housing, support for the arts, for example, all of which you say you’re against. Based on that, and by the definitions I used, I’d class you as a typical American conservative on most issues and no way a social liberal. By European standards you’d just be far-right.
What the OP describes is the mythical center that the American pundit class idealizes, which amounts to neo-liberal Democrats and whatever liberal Republicans still exist. But one might argue America’s heart leans more towards fiscal liberalism and social conservatism. That was Trump’s message, if you can call it that.
Simple labels break down upon examination. Like someone who seems traditionally conservative and says they support capitalism and markets, but hates the destruction of traditional values caused by corporatism, consumerism, and the vulgar media, and who actually supports social welfare as long as it doesn’t go to “moochers.”
American right libertarians aren’t socially liberal, per se. They’re agnostics whatever the issue is, just as long as the government doesn’t interfere. If markets want to be socially illiberal they’ll shrug their shoulders.
Social liberal, fiscal liberal - liberals
Social liberal, fiscal conservative - libertarian
Social conservative, fiscal liberal - reagan democrats
Social conservative, fiscal conservative - religious right
Libertarians generally support government for national defense, but are indifferent to cultural issues like gay marriage, racial anxiety, gender issues, etc. They are also opposed to most government regulation of industry and the social safety net.
I’m another who would describe myself as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.
With regard to social issues, I don’t care who is or is not gay and think people who are gay should have the same rights as everyone else- the right to marry, adopt, parent, divorce, obtain qualifying SS benefits, find and keep work/employment, buy insurance, etc. All that stuff.
I don’t care who gets an abortion or why (as long as they are of legal age with legal protections for young women).
I think marijuana should be legal and taxed like alcohol (although we need some guidelines and clarification about being impaired at work).
And I am a fiscal conservative with regards to money because I think we should spend money wisely. For example, it is foolish to “shut the government down” and read Dr Seuss on the floor.
It’s dumb to have a Muslim ban/not Muslim ban or ‘bathroom bills’ that wastes the time of the courts.
We have been at war for over 15 years. Time to wind that money sink down.
It would be less expensive and more efficient to have basic, universal healthcare for all citizens than the for profit system we have now.
How are we defining fiscally conservative? I would think the term describes quite a variety of opinion; from those who think the government taking 10% of their income is too much to those who think the government taking 30+% of their income is just about enough.