Okay, I’m honestly not trying to start a debate thread here, just an honest question. Bear with me.
All the time I see people, who are not either “conservatives” or “liberals” crying out for leadership that is “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”
Why have I never seen (to my memory) outcries for “fiscally liberal and socially conservative” leaders? It seems odd to have a large (in my readings) group asking for one mix, but not the other.
I would guess that you’re American? In the US, people tend to wish for more fiscal conservatism than they currently have, so that explains half of it. The other half is explained by the fact that current leadership is rather socially conservative already (at least seen through this European’s eyes) so few people are likely to want it to become more so.
Or it could be that the general American sentiment is “Let everyone do what they want and it’ll work out”, which fits rather well with fiscal rightism and social leftism.
More of the typical American “we-wan’t-it-but-let-someone-else-pay-for-it” philosophy
Because Fiscally liberal, socially conservative politicians are called ‘Dixiecrats’ and no one wants a Dixiecrat.
I object, sir, that’s not at all the case. Economic conservatism, as I understand it, calls for reduction of government spending, not a welfare state.
Because fiscally conservative and socially liberal embraces what we perceive to be the American Ideal. Let everybody do pretty much what they want, and don’t tax people for social engineering schemes…just for necessary social services. Otherwise, the smaller the government, the better.
The best government is one that keeps its nose out of my bedroom and its hands off my wallet. 
:smack:
11th Commandment: Thou Shalt Preview
Exactly, though I’m not averse to ponying up when people have genuine needs. And as for the OP’s failure to see a clamor for such candidates, Illinois, for instance, usually produces them, people like the late Sen Paul Simon, Barack Obama, and Dick Durbin. In fact, I’d say that coming out of state government, where you have to balance the budget while providing the services your constituents need, then running for the Senate in this, a VERY diverse state, produces people who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, almost by default.
Because “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” means (more or less) the libertarian goal of a small government whose function is, basically, to keep people from hurting each other. I wish it were the “huge cry” you describe.
If it seems that the socially liberal/fiscally conservative position is favoured in the public dialogue, it might be because the players being represented in those conversations (multinational corporations, media giants) lean that way.
Because arguing for this would be asking for things to become closer to a fundamentalist, socialist state. Thats about as close to pure evil based on the American dictum as you get.
There may be a “huge cry” for it on this board, but I don’t see it so much out in the real world.
I think you got it backwards. Fiscally liberal and socially conservative is not libertarian. I assume you misread the statement. What the OP describes leans towards libertarianism. Not the opposite.
Yeah, I think the majority of voters want morals enforced by the gov’t. Why else would so many of them vote for amendments banning gay marriage?
Yes, I think my title may have confused some people. It’s worth (well, I think it is) reading the OP in its entirety carefully, because on reflection, the title is misleading. It probably should have been, “Why isn’t there a huge cry for fiscally liberal and socially conservative leadership?”
Again, I’m not trying to start a debate. I could see how the title looks like a call to defend fiscally conservative/socially liberal, but that’s not really my question.
Here’s the basic breakdown, from an American viewpoint:
socially liberal, fiscally liberal = Liberal (in the American sense)
socially liberal, fiscally conservative = Libertarian
socially conservative, fiscally liberal = Populist (in the 1890s movement sense)
socially conservative, fiscally conservative = Conservative (in the American sense)
At least that’s how it was broken down in Freshman PoliSci back in 1994.
:smack: I misread CandidGamera’s post. Sorry!
Because nobody wants a leader who describes himself as ‘fiscally liberal’. It’s like saying “Hey, elect me, I’m a spendthrift who will drive the country into bankruptcy!”
Of course, everybody wants more gov’t spending (on either social services or military) and lower taxes, so the natural tendency of Congress and the President are to be fiscally liberal, but nobody admits that’s the goal.
The fact is, of course, we have an administration and Congress right now that are in action quite socially conservative and fiscally liberal, but they’ll never admit that. [This administration occaisionally pretends to be enforceing spending discipline on Congress, but I don’t think they’re really trying too hard. Bottom line is we’ve got a large and growing budget deficit when we’re not in a recession, and that’s fiscally liberal in my book]
Please see my post…