Friday, April 01, 2011

The Myth of the "Fiscally Conservative", Socially "Moderate"/Liberal Republican (or Scott Brown Lied, Fiscal Responsibility Died)

One year ago, Sen. Scott Brown (RINO-MA) declared:
And make no mistake, I am a fiscal conservative. And when it comes to issues affecting people’s pockets, and pocketbooks, and wallets, I’ll be with the Republicans if they are in fact pushing those initiatives.

They all are. From Schwarzenegger to Crist to Murkowski to the Maine Twins to ... you name it. If some politician proclaims himself or herself to be a "fiscal conservative" but social "moderate", that person is a LIAR because that person is neither. That person is, in fact, a LIBERAL. Maybe not as liberal as the Dems, but nevertheless liberal enough to support the wholesale slaughter of the unborn, the destruction of the institution of marriage, and the picking of your pocket to support the size and scope of our overbloated federal government (including the taxpayer funding of the organization that engages in most of the wholesale slaughter of the unborn).

A few months back, I did a post concurring with Sen. Jim DeMint's assessment that "you can't be a fiscal conservative and NOT be a social conservative". In that post, I quoted extensively from a piece written by my friend, Paul Zummo. Here's an excerpt:

... anyone who has paid any amount of attention to politics over the past couple of decades should recognize that the people who label themselves fiscally conservative and socially moderate or liberal – let’s call them cafeteria conservatives – are the first people to betray the cause of limited government on economic issues. A prime example of this is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger...


John Hawkins did a bit of analysis that shows a fairly strong correlation between fiscal and social conservatism. Though the measuring device is a bit crude, it shows that when it comes to economic issues, social conservatives are the most reliable votes in favor of fiscal conservatism.

Prior to that, I had written another post on the topic of Sen. DeMint and social conservatism vs. fiscal conservatism:
... social conservatives don't tend to compartmentalize their conservatism as do, say, so-called "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" types - in fact, social conservatives tend to be more consistently fiscally conservative than the self-described fiscal conservatives ...


Show me someone who claims to be a "fiscal conservative" and a social liberal, and I'll show you either:

(1) a plain-old liberal who thinks his taxes are a little high;

(2) someone whose alleged "fiscal conservatism" is malleable to whatever his social liberalism dictates; or

(3) someone who is so preoccupied with what other liberals think of him (which is why ha adopts the socially liberal mantra in the first place), that at the first sign of left-wing horror over the alleged real-world repercussions of his fiscally conservative policy preferences, he will drop said fiscal conservatism like a hot potato.

In short, don't believe the myth of the "fiscally conservative", but socially "moderate" Republican. It's a damned lie.

Labels: , , ,


At 4/01/2011 11:26 PM, Blogger Stoic Man said...

I don't understand why you think it is, in principle, not possible for someone to be fiscally responsible but refuse to believe that the government should interfere in peoples' personal lives. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

I believe that the United States should cut spending and reduce the national debt. I also believe that homosexuals can marry. No lie!

At 4/06/2011 7:28 AM, Blogger Paul Zummo said...

I don't understand why you think it is, in principle, not possible for someone to be fiscally responsible but refuse to believe that the government should interfere in peoples' personal lives.

This is such a phony observation. It is the left, not the right, that want to interfere in people's personal lives. Which side promotes smoking bans? Which side is the one that seeks to dictate what foods people can eat? Even the marriage debate shows the left to be the true statists. After all, gay people can "marry" now, but what they want is state recognition of their marriage. So which side is invoking government involvement?

When you want massive government intervention in the economic sphere, it is but a short step towards massive government intervention in other aspects. Conservatives aren't the nanny staters, either economically or socially. It's a nice straw man, though, for those who wish to insult conservatives.

At 2/12/2012 12:58 PM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

To "Charlie":

Comments do not have to be approved on this blog unless they are comments to posts that are beyond a certain vintage. The fact that you're commenting on a post that is close to a year old is more of a reflection of what a behind-the-time dumbass you are, than it is on my commenting policy.

You don't like it? Tough shit. No one is forcing you to read this blog. And besides, your comment was nothing but a rude diatribe of ad hominem that wasn't going to be approved anyway. Again, don't like it? Tough shit and kiss my ass.

Fucking asshole.

At 2/12/2012 1:21 PM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

And as for "sheer stupidity", Charlie, this part of your unapproved comment takes the cake:

"The government saying what will and what will not be taught (creationism vs evolution) in schools is the government getting involved in our lives. Another area you are hypocritical."

The VERY FACT of the school is the govenment getting involved in your life, not whether creationism (of which I am NOT a proponent, dumbass) is taught instead of evolution. When government schools teach your kids math, science, reading, or any other subject, that is "the government getting involved in our lives".

You fucking moron.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger