H -°, L 45° | Tomorrow: 
H 62°, L 51°As I pondered the topic of this column, I began to think about different political beliefs people hold, how they are formed and what they mean to this campus. While most UW students are best described as Obama Democrats, there are quite a few resilient conservatives that exist, many of whom join College Republicans and Young Americans for Liberty.
Many members of these groups, generally more aligned with the Republican Party, consider themselves socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Meaning that they’ve got no real problem with gay marriage or abortion but don’t like the idea of a national debt totaling $13.4 trillion.
So, these people tend to support Republicans, often times ignoring the fact that the social beliefs many members of the GOP hold do not match up to their own beliefs.
But what about the flipped around version of that ideology? Are there any people who are socially conservative and fiscally liberal?
You could certainly argue that the neoconservatives that were a part of the Bush administration were just that. After all, they were vehemently opposed to gay marriage and stem cell research, while at the same time supporting a multi-billion dollar war against a country that posed no immediate threat to the United States.
The issue with that is people tend to refer to themselves as “fiscally liberal” in the sense that they want to spend money on social programs, such as welfare, unemployment and health care.
Given that, is it possible to be both “fiscally liberal,” in that you want to spend money fighting homelessness and poverty, and at the same time be “socially conservative,” in that you are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and pro-religion in schools?
In other words, does such a person exist that caters to every whim of the Vatican and wants to spend taxpayer dollars to support major social welfare programs? Or are those things mutually exclusive?
If such a person exists, I don’t think I’ve met them.
Truly, it comes down to a matter of social empathy. If you have the ability to detect the obvious issues in society (think poverty and de facto segregation) and want to use government to fix them, you should also be able to understand the more personal, internal issues — such as why homosexuals feel discriminated against for not being able to marry, or why atheists feel personally offended when their son has to stand silently while the rest of his public school class takes part in prayer time.
Those personal, internal issues are easy for people to understand when they’re directly faced with them. That’s why you have conservative college students who are socially liberal — maybe they’ve had a few close gay friends or have seen how unwanted pregnancies create complicated situations. However, they weren’t raised to think their parents’ tax dollars should go toward unemployment benefits — a system that is, regrettably, irreversibly flawed.
Traditional conservatives and these “socially liberal” conservatives have something in common: They want to decrease government spending, almost always by cutting social programs or public works. Which is fine. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I get that.
But I wonder at what point those two groups will break apart. As more and more Americans begin to empathize with the causes championed by “social liberals,” will fiscal conservatism survive in the way it exists today? I lean toward no, but selfish, big government haters will always be around.
Kevin Bargnes (kbargnes@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and history. If you’re a fiscal liberal but still a social conservative, shoot him an e-mail, he’d like to pick your mind a bit.
IP hash: 6ac7847b
These fiscal liberal/social conservatives you’re looking for are actually probably the deciding swing voters in Wisconsin. North Eastern Wisconsin has a ton of Liberal Catholics who take things like poverty reduction and charity very seriously while at the same time voting against abortion rights and gay marriage.
Remember, in 2006 both Gay Marriage and Civil Unions were smashed in Wisconsin and two years later Wisconsin went for Obama.
IP hash: c808ee1a
You know, this would have almost been a good, thought-provoking article if not for the snobby “have your cake and eat it too” line. I would just simply like to do whatever I want with my cake, rather than having it stolen by a politician with a gun. Maybe I want to give it to a gay couple for their wedding. And, what most people unfortunately don’t understand, that’s the only intellectually coherent argument. I want freedom to keep my stuff and do whatever I want with it, and I want freedom to do whatever I want in my personal life. The sad fact about American politics today is you can either choose socialism and civil rights, or “free markets” (really corporatist fascism, but that’s for another day) and intrusive fundamentalists. We shouldn’t wonder when “social liberalism’ and “fiscal conservatism” will break up. We should hope there will be more people that are both. But for that to happen, people would have to think, not regurgitate the steaming piles of philosophical shit that society feeds them.
IP hash: cbb475a1
Social empathy? That’s taking cake from someone else, liberally eating half of it yourself, distributing a quarter to ‘the poor’, and wasting the rest of it. Then complain about the quality of the cake and the person you you took it from. Redistribution of wealth by Marxist dictators like your self is always hidden behind the guise of ‘helping the poor’.
“And Lo, unto Madison, a social empathy demagogue is born. He shall be named Kevin Bargnes.”
You want to take cake from others and eat it too. I get that.
I am a conservative who gives liberally to the charities of my choosing. I don’t need progressive socialists to tell me who needs help or how I should redistribute my personally hard earned ‘wealth’. Put you social empathy hands to work and earn your own wealth. I promise I will not use socialist demagoguery to try to lay a guilt trip on you or redistribute your wealth to my personal dictates.
IP hash: d9a07f74
Nice article Kevin and thanks for the shoutout for YAL. I’d argue that in some sense fiscal conservatism is already dead. Neither the dems or repubs govern as fiscal conservatives, and the fact that the “tea party” in large part supports our trillion dollar foreign policy shows that they really aren’t truly fiscally conservative either. I think there still is an untapped and deep, intense support for fiscal conservatism as we saw in the Ron Paul campaign. Unfortunately, we’ve become a nation of dependents so the fact that we might elect a president who would end the welfare/warfare state appears rather slim.
IP hash: 17a5269d
So, let me break this down. Society has liberalised its views on personal issues like gay marriage, based on the principle that government should interfere less in our lives. This is especially true for young people. Because of this, they will then demand that government interferes more with our property? Why? Couldn’t they just use their wealth themselves to benefit others if they wanted to, instead of forcing others into a collective ‘pool’ of wealth? That’s actually the more liberal choice. Let people do with their money as they see fit.
IP hash: ec1027f5
“Society has liberalised its views on personal issues like gay marriage, based on the principle that government should interfere less in our lives.”
Not exactly. The argument for gay marriage is based around the principle of equal rights, not less government interference. It would be difficult to make the “less interference” argument on this topic because granting a marriage certificate is all about what government benefits you gain from said certificate. Disllowing gays these benefits is against equal rights for our citizens, not about stopping the government from giving benefits from those who get married.
“In fact, households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.”
Where did you find this? Please supply some kind of link, I would love to look into it. You are making broad assumptions based on this fact, but it lacks the explanation of where this “charity” money is going.
For example, giving money to a church is considered tax-deductible income and considered charity. But this “charity” is most likely going to keep the church open. Giving to a church is different from giving to a charity that focuses on assisting the poor or elderly. You can’t simply group all types of charity into one single statistic and then claim that liberals don’t give to the poor as much as conservatives.
It is much more plausible that the charity distribution is somewhat even. 30% is an insanely large disparity.
IP hash: dddff9db
Liberals make me laugh. They waste their time pushing for the government to “redistribute the wealth” under the guise that they just want to help those in need and make the playing field more equal.
But the funny part is that they really want nothing to do with it. In fact, households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.
So when it comes down to it, Conservatives are willing to give (definitely more so than their liberal counterparts) but would like to do it on their own accord, such as choosing the amount of money and the charity (which they know and trust will use their money efficiently). Essentially, Liberals like to blindly throw other people’s money around.
So who is really lacking in social empathy here? The liberal who complains that conservatives are soaking up all the wealth but is unwilling to give himself? Or the conservatives who like to CHOOSE where their money goes?
IP hash: 51c51839
I don’t think fiscal conservatism is in any danger of extinction. You’re looking at a university campus, pretty small demographics. I think it’s safe to say a lot of people here don’t understand what it means to have a salary job, or one that pays over $40k a year. That’s when people start paying attention to exactly how much of their earnings are going to government programming. I think we can all agree that the government system is fairly inefficient, so why is it so bad if I want to manage it myself? I earned it, after all.
IP hash: 17a5269d
From a broader perspective, politics are not actually about social issues like gay rights or abortion. Those are cultural issues that reflect how different people view them at that moment. They will be sorted out in time, as the opinions of future generations evolve. It may be frustrating to have to be patient when you don’t agree with someone’s stance on a social issue, but what’s the alternative? Force them to accept your view? That’s not possible, and it’s unfair. The key political question is this: “What is the proper role and scope of the government?” If you believe that people generally know how to run their own lives and how to manage their own property, then you should conclude that government ought to be limited enough to allow everyone the maximum amount of freedom while still maintaining order. This principle translates to these types of questions: Why do we even allow the state to recognize marriage in the first place? Why are some people being forced to work for the benefit of others? Who ought to have the most control- a central authority in Washington, or the people themselves, recognized as sovereign individuals?
IP hash: af8f7a80
Unemployment insurance is almost completely funded by a payroll tax on employers, not directly by your ‘parents tax dollars.’
IP hash: 415aa02b
Socially conservative and fiscally liberal? See Mike Huckabee. Talking public charity and social programs, but still hatin’ on the gays.
IP hash: e741763a
Socially conservative and fiscally liberal?
See Unions.
IP hash: 56328663
most black people over the age of 30 are fiscally liberal and socially conservative
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html
IP hash: c3b8c570
That’s because most black people under the age of 30 are in jail.
IP hash: 01deda41
The quality of writing is underwhelming.