I will suggest that if this is what you want, and more importantly, what you want from a date/SO, any further attempt to parse “fiscally conservative” is merely rearranging the fly shit in the pepper for somebody who already dislikes pepper.
We all can certainly have a productive discussion about what FC+SL might mean in general, what are the contradictions and synergies inherent in those beliefs, etc. Which some folks upthread have already done.
But if your goal is filtering online dating profiles, all that is mere sophistry. For you, FC = skip her. Period.
A FC-SL person would claim they think Black people have the right to live wherever they can afford to buy a house, but as soon as a Black person moves into their neighborhood and potentially lowers their home’s value, they’ll be first in line to light up the cross.
There’s nothing really incoherent about those, but rarer to find here in the US. But big swaths of the world are socialist (assuming this is how you define fiscal liberalism) and socially conservative.
I used to describe myself that way. Basically on the social front, which is easier to explain, my perspective was (and is) if you aren’t hurting anybody, then you do you. On other social issues, such as climate change, pro-action. I used to be anti-legalization of MJ, but I changed my mind on that about the time I stopped identifying as conservative, and that was probably my most non-liberal ideology.
On the fiscal side, I believed that government wasted too much money, and favoured less taxation and less government waste. What I’ve realized is that the “waste” to me, was the “treasure” to somebody else. Plus, I don’t anybody is in favour of government waste. As far as I’m concerned, the government should do whatever spending is necessary to support a happy and equitable society, and I support the necessary taxation to do it. Life is too short for to be all “I got mine, so screw you.” I want everybody to have sufficient food, water, housing, medical/mental care, etc.
Yes, you could have someone who is anti-abortion, but also in favor of extensive support for single mothers. I don’t know if any such person actually exists anywhere, but this would at least be a self-consistent philosophy that would qualify as SC-FL.
I was thinking Asian countries where there is.a lot of social welfare and a government controlled economy, but not very into stuff like drugs, LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, etc. In my polysci classes in college, this quadrant of the left-right social-economy grid was labeled as “populist.”
Drug legalization is another good FC-SL issue. Drug prohibition is hugely expensive, and doesn’t actually seem to do much to solve the problems it claims to solve. Legalization actually makes us money by bringing drug sales into the legitimate economy, so we can tax it, and, in the places where it’s been tried, has actually been better at curtailing a lot of the negatives of drug use that so many people are concerned with.
The big thing that changed my mind was the increasing literature on the benefits of medical MJ. Once I accepted medical MJ, then it was a short hop to “Meh, I don’t care. You do you.”
I think it means I’d rather have the government use money from a balanced budget to fix roads and pay for schools instead of go into debt funding diversity and inclusion programs. But I don’t disagree with what those DEI programs are trying to do.
Or like, I’m not evicting you because of your race, sexual preference or whatever. I’m evicting you because you haven’t paid your rent in months.
Yes, but the whole “property values” argument is predicated on the notion that they’re living in some kind of white enclave, where having a Black family move in would trigger an apocalypse of white flight.
I suspect most people living in such enclaves are unlikely to be considered “socially liberal”.
The problem with everyone I know who says this is that they will 100% of the time vote for lower taxes.
Even my brother who dragged me kicking and screaming into racial, gender and environmental liberalism in the 1980s/90s is now a “hold my nose and vote Republican” guy. Because he’s got a pile of money that is more dear to him than his children or our parents.
In my mind, at least in a dating profile, “FCSL” is the political equivalent of “spiritual, but not religious”. By which they mean “I’m X, but not the bad things you’ve heard about X, but also not the bad things you’ve heard about ‘not X’ either”. Basically a mamby-pamby non-committal answer that is only meant not to be a dealbreaker for most people when a real answer would be.
Ideally, sure. But when you’re voting for political candidates, you don’t get to be so a la carte about which positions you’re supporting. If supporting minority rights means voting for the Democratic tax platform, a whole lot (most?) of these “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” folks will throw the minorities under the bus if it means they get a little more cash in their pocket.