As someone who has used the term before.
Social liberal: I think you should be able to do whatever you want in your personal life, even if it harms yourself. I’m willing to negotiate with harming consenting adults while recognizing the possibility, even likelihood, of an imbalance of power making it difficult to properly give consent, or for it to be recognized by the public at large, e.g., maybe Amazon workers aren’t really okay with peeing in bottles because they don’t have enough time or facilities for bathroom breaks, just because they accepted the job. Doing things that harm those you have guardianship over is not acceptable because they are not in a position to give consent.
Fiscal conservative: I want money in the public trust to be spent effectively. This doesn’t mean I want less taxes, I’m in fact okay with more. A city near me has 30% of its budget dedicated to police services, yet we have some of the highest violent crime in Canada. The simple fact is, a lot of crime is driven by poverty and lack of opportunity. So why are we paying to catch and jail poor people with no skills who are trying to survive and not paying for skills training, robust childhood education, and at least minimal supports so people don’t have to be desperate enough to risk their lives and mine so they can survive? It doesn’t make sense and there’s no indication it’s working. FYI, school meal programs tend to help the local economy to the tune of about $7 for every $1 you spend on them. That sounds terribly fiscally responsible to me…
100%. I want to loudly point out that you saying ‘jailing poor people not isn’t fiscally responsible and doesn’t benefit society, the money would be better spent giving people a better shot at success’ is a great example of social liberal (make society better) and fiscal conservative (don’t spend money on stupid things).
I hear a closeted MAGA.
You need to get your hearing checked.
Nothing about what you describe has even the slightest thing to do with conservatism though, so I don’t know why you would describe that as being “fiscal conservative”.
Maybe not what it means currently in America. But in general it sounds fiscally conservative to me.
One of the definitions of conservative is cautious or restrained. How is not spending money in a risky way not conservative? How is making choices based on evidence from other experiences not conservative? How is not spending money and letting physical and social structures that are serving you well decay conservative?
I prefer to use the term fiscally responsible.
It’s fiscally irresponsible to cut taxes for the billionaires and corporations when we have record deficits.
It’s fiscally irresponsible to cut the IRS budget when that results in less revenue.
Republican voters have been brainwashed into thinking that Republicans are somehow more responsible with the economy and budget, when history shows that Republicans drive up the deficit with irresponsible tax cuts.
It’s irresponsible to cut taxes and not cut spending.
Edit: spending more than yu take in creates debt and that is not responsible
Did you ever hear about investing, which is the act of spending money and getting value back?
So many people with such brutal takes on it – helps to quantify who the audience is on lemmy I guess.
Socially liberal fiscally conservative, to me at least, means that the person is in favour of equality in the sense of equality of treatment from the government, but is not in favour of additional big spending projects to try and have equality of opportunity. They’re pro-choice, but likely against the government funnelling money into providing abortions for women (so abortions available, but not gov subsidized). They’re pro-trans rights in terms of being fine with whoever doing whatever they want with their body/partners of choice, but against government paying for trans-specific gender affirming procedures and parades to highlight those groups. They’re in favour of things like universal medicare/dental care, because those programs are shown to be a net benefit fiscally and socially.
In general, they support socially progressive ideas, so long as they’re fiscally costed out and beneficial to the public purse. They’re against increased government spending / reach, preferring ‘small government’, with the social components placed more on individuals to fund directly.
They’re in favour of things like universal medicare/dental care, because those programs are shown to be a net benefit fiscally and socially.
I’ve never met someone who was “socially liberal fiscally conservative” who believed this.
They’re usually pro good things, but they don’t want to pay for them, so they’re not actually pro those things at all.
“Small government” and “private individuals will handle it” typically means it just won’t happen.
For starters, the question wasn’t, as far as I know, asking how the ideology / stance fairs in terms of implementation / reality. Like you can give a description of what a communist believes, without having to try and explain Communist Russia / China.
In terms of medicare/dental care, yes, there are soc lib fisc con people that do believe that. Likely not people in the USA, where everything skews right wing – their soc lib is more like “I have a black friend! I’m not racist!”. In more sane countries, there are a good number of people who fall into that ideological mindset, who do support public utilities/health initiatives – it’s pretty common here in Canada, based on people I’ve spoken with.
Like a soc lib fisc con person I know, has previously suggested that we ought to change how roads / cars are handled – arguing that cities shouldn’t have anywhere near as many cars, and that common “paved” roads should be essentially relegated to highways/freeways due to the cost and ecological impact. In their take, city budgets are often bloated by road repair costs due to the over-engineering of what’s required for regular residential activity. Using other road materials would dramatically increase sustainability – and even if it results in more ‘maintenance’ cost/road tolls for car users who still insist on using cars, that’s up to the consumer. I don’t know if they were talking nonsense, but that’s the sort of thing I sometimes hear people in the soc lib fisc con camp say.
I suppose you this touches on how I’m in the US, where everything is skewed towards insane nonsense. It would be extremely unusual to find a conservative of any sort here that would support anything remotely anti-car, for example. Even if it would save money.
Yeah, it’s not too surprising that it’ll have slightly different contexts in different regions.
Me as an ESL being utterly confused by people’s replies when apparently I understand “conservative” as per Merriam Webster dictionary definition 2.a “marked by moderation or caution”
😵💫😵
Euro perspective - When I hear fiscally conservative, that means supporting a governmental policy that is frugal with spending and responsible with public assets and finances.
This has several parts, here are some of the most important:
a) Keeping a balanced budget - the government should not be spending more than it is collecting from taxes and income. (A little debt in dire times is fine, but that should be payed off when possible)
b) Responsible management and long term planning - the planning horizon should be counted in decades
c) Focusing on core tasks: national security, infrastructure, healthcare, education etc.
d) Not raising taxes unless strictly necessary, lowering them if it is permissible according to the above.
Socially liberal => supports personal liberties
Now why does government debt even matter? Well, because debt is owed somewhere, and if it becomes large may mean that the government is beholden to other parties for the debt.
What party runs on the platform of fiscal irresponsibility?
Usually fiscal irresponsibility comes in the form of lavish promises (subsidies, tax cuts, projects etc.) with a jarring absence of an answer to the question “How are we going to finance this?”
Right, but (at least in the US) those politicians will turn around and tell voters that they’re fiscally conservative. And they will believe it.
Well, that’s just called lying - US politicians haven’t been fiscally conservative in a long time.
Compared to Sweden
It makes sense to me. There’s no middle ground anymore and nowhere for these people to go. It sucks. Many people want fiscal conservatism but also support common sense social issues. I don’t see what’s so weird about this. The people accusing these people of being republicans or bad people are fucking idiots and shows the average understanding of politics/policy on Lemmy.
Edit: To clarify, I’m not saying that this describes me. Just that i totally understand it.
My first thought is to wonder what they mean, as opposed to deciding it must be the worst thing I can think of.
I assume they vote liberal or are uncomfortable being seen as the hateful sack of shit they are.
If we’re talking America the parties align like this:
- Democrat: Socially moderate, fiscally conservative
- Republican: Socially regressive, fiscally liberal
That they’re a Democrat
This is my father. Like, I’m happy that he doesn’t hate me because I’m bi and poly. He’s pretty open about how he thinks the Republican party is cruel and shitty.
His problem is that he associates fiscally progressive policies with California’s creaking and inefficient bureaucracy. In his career, he spent a lot of time interacting with various CA governmental departments and he grew to loathe them intensely. Whenever I discuss progressive policies with him, he always relates it back to his experiences living and working in California and then just shrugs and says “I hate both parties for different reasons.”
It’s funny, because like, shit man, I kinda agree with him on a superficial level. California’s state and local governments sucks at their jobs in a lot of ways (see the notorious San Francisco public bathroom). I agree that unions (of which there are many in California) can sometimes impede quick and efficient work (although I don’t fucking care, I just chill out and am patient with folks and the shit gets done eventually. The process would be more efficient if the company tried to have a more harmonious relationship with the union).
He just doesn’t seem to understand that as far as progressive polities go, California is a terrible example. There are plenty of places around the world that that have implemented progressive and socialist policies while still preserving the things he cares about (efficiency and relative frugality), but he’s never been to those places. He hasn’t engaged with those governments. All he can think of is the “progressive” state that caused him so much anger.
So basically, I think most people like this are fundamentally nice and decent, but they’re ignorant and are blind to the underlying dissonance between their social and fiscal philosophies. My dad has never voted for Trump (he wrote in a friend’s name which was basically a vote for Trump, but fuck man, it’s at least a little better), but I don’t believe he’ll ever accept that voting according to his fiscal philosophy directly contradicts his social philosophy.
EDIT: apologies if this is rambling or poorly written. I’m sleep deprived and distracted and very stressed, and I probably shouldn’t have commented at all.
They believe in the social policies of the Democrats and the financial policies of conservatives?
I mean I would ask follow up questions but at face value that would be what they meant no?
The democrats are fiscally conservative. The GOP believes in budget unbalancing tax cuts and are fiscally liberal.
So the person who says what’s in the post title is probably just a centrist Democrat. Which explains why they’re getting so much hate here.
I used to think this, because I was against government waste. But I also supported welfare programs, so I was just using the wrong terms for my ideas.
I am socially liberal and with my personal budget, fiscally conservative. Government money? Different priorities, plenty of stuff would be cheaper when we pool our money like that, so I’m not sure what fiscally conservative means. My gut reaction is that this person isn’t socially liberal because regressive government fiscal policies harm the population, you can’t really split it out like that. I guess it’s someone who doesn’t care who you marry or how you dress but also doesn’t care if the schools are any good or if there is any enforcement of the rights to do the socially liberal things.
Well this is what I think since I often fall into that kind of thinking and kind of reflected on how I recently voted on a proposition.
It was increase to the sales tax to make the area “safer and vibrant” and touted as a major way in this prop was providing help for affordable housing. My brain went immediately jumped to the more progressive leaning side and went, I’d love to help those who can’t afford housing and yeah, I don’t mind paying a bit more tax even though I don’t particularly like the whole more regressive taxation kind of thing but overall it would be a great thing. Then I looked at the break down and saw that only 17 percent of the funding would actually go toward affordable housing.
That’s where the more fiscally conservative part went, huh, well that doesn’t pass the sniff test if you’re making this about affordable housing and making things “safer” for them and the community dafuq is it only 17 percent of the budget there? Well digging in, 45 percent of this would have gone to cops and first responders, heavy emphasis on cops with articles going on about how the cops were looking forward to buying a helicopter. That fiscally conservative part of me went, yeah, that’s wasting my god damn tax money then.
At that point my NWA part of the brain went, you assholes want to hire more cops with no change in hiring standards where we already have a problem with way too many racists ass police, give them cars, helicopters, more tasers and guns, and body cameras that we don’t have access to the footage and no consequences if these assholes turn them off during an their encounters with the public? ACAB you bunch of tone deaf jackasses and Fuck the Police.
Needless to say, I did not vote for that increase in taxes.
I think we have countless words. We should use our words.
We all have a spectrum of social and economic and other ideals.
Those who want to lead us have theirs too, and they’re the ones who need us to commit and compartmentalize into ideologies and macro definitions that get twisted.
