27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

Tigger said:

If you've been reading my posts since I joined in July, none of that should surpise you, Gina.

Click to expand...

No, I guess it doesn't surprise me that it was you that said that.

I have to wonder if other conservatives would agree with you though.

Tigger said:

If you've been reading my posts since I joined in July, none of that should surpise you, Gina.

Click to expand...

I like the fact you're unabashedly honest about your views.

iliveonramen said:

You're right, it's not complex, your definition of "conservative" is based solely on your personal definition. You are aware that Reagans "big tent" philosophy is the reason the Republican party actually became relevant again in politics right?

Click to expand...

RR became relevant because his conservative principles were a clear contrast from Jimmy Carter's failed liberal principles. RR didn't water down his conservative principles in order to win over moderates.

Tigger said:

Yes, and it's one of the reasons that those of us who are True Conservatives spit on his grave.

Click to expand...

I consider myself to be very conservative. I didn't like some of RR's decisions but not enough to spit on his grave.

conservativeguy said:

RR became relevant because his conservative principles were a clear contrast from Jimmy Carter's failed liberal principles. RR didn't water down his conservative principles in order to win over moderates.

Click to expand...

Carter was not very liberal...he was fiscally and socially conservative.

Carter was a southern Democrat and they have traditional been more conservative than GOPs. He was 8 to 10 clicks right of Reagan on social policy and at least three clicks to the right on economic policy.

lpast said:

That is a landslide minority

The teaparty has had no impact in changing americans beliefs...the numbers remain the same.

he bad economy, a change in presidents, bailouts, health care, the Tea Party and now another presidential cycle, you name it. Still, the basic fiscal and social ideologies of U.S. voters remain largely unchanged.

27% Say They

Click to expand...

What the hell does the Tea Party have to do with a poll talking about fiscal AND social issues when its largely and primarily a fiscal, not social, movement?

lpast said:

That is a landslide minority

The teaparty has had no impact in changing americans beliefs...the numbers remain the same.

he bad economy, a change in presidents, bailouts, health care, the Tea Party and now another presidential cycle, you name it. Still, the basic fiscal and social ideologies of U.S. voters remain largely unchanged.


27% Say They

Click to expand...

Fiscal conservatives are all about smaller government and spending less money. Fiscal conservatives tend toward the Libertarian ideal of less government and more individual responsibility.

Social conservatives, on the other hand, tend toward the authoritarian side, wanting to make laws to govern individual behavior and impose their morality on the rest of society by force of law.

The two are like oil and water, it seems to me. A fiscal and social conservative has to engage in some serious doublethink in order to keep both ideas in their heads at once.

Gina said:

No, I guess it doesn't surprise me that it was you that said that.

I have to wonder if other conservatives would agree with you though.

Click to expand...

The next moment that I concern myself with whether or not anyone agrees with me, will be the FIRST moment I concern myself with whether or not anyone agrees with me, Gina.

iliveonramen said:

I like the fact you're unabashedly honest about your views.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much, ramen.

conservativeguy said:

I consider myself to be very conservative. I didn't like some of RR's decisions but not enough to spit on his grave.

Click to expand...

He spent the majority of his Presidency looking OUTSIDE this country when there were and still are massive, festering wounds INSIDE this nation that need to be addressed much more pressingly.

Antiderivative said:

Social conservatives appeal to an authoritative government. Are social conservatives not real conservatives?

Click to expand...

That's actually incorrect.

SOME social conservatives appeal to an authoritative government.

The issue is people wrongfully attempt to take an ideology that has multiple segments and suggest that a singular segment is the true one.

You have Social Conservatism, focusing on traditions, morals, and societal lifestyle.

You have Governmental Conservatism, focusing on size and scope of government and the amount of intrusion and power it should have on peoples lives.

You have Fiscal Conservatism, focusing on the costs of operating government and the amount government involves itself in your own finances.

You have Militaristic Conservatism, focusing on the size/scope/strength of our military, our intelligence capabilities, our status and regard within the world, etc.

Those are in my mind your four largest branches from the baseline of "conservatism". Someone who is extremely socially conservative but who is rather weak regarding Governmental conservatism is likely to trend more authoritarian, as they do not have the conservative aversion to government intervention so intead us the government to enforce those traditions, morals, lifestyle choices, etc.

On the flip side, one could be a social and governmental conservative, and feel that those traditions or morals should be instilled by preventing the use of government to enforce things onto people that are contrary to those traditions or morals, or that they should be instilled from a more personal level with the government staying hands off save for in places its absolutely necessary.

Depending on how strong or weak they are in any particular portion of conservatism can tip the scale as to what's acceptable and what's not.

Its possible to be socially conservative and not be authoratarian. Its even possible to be socially conservative and libertarian. The "authoritarian/libertarian" deliniation comes much more out of their place on the governmental scale rather than social.

There's not only one type of social conservative, and attempting to lump all conservatives as those who feel the government should forcefully involve itself into how people live their lives is a grossly innacurate and ignorant of reality statement.

conservativeguy said:

RINO's liked the Big Tent theory, not conservatives.

Click to expand...

No, the GOP liked the Big Tent nature of the party. Limbaugh used to brag about it. Conservatives (of whom there are very few actual ones left) reveled in it because of the competition for ideas and platform it brought.

Antiderivative said:

Then tell me how using the government to curb gay marriage

Click to expand...

One can be socially conservative and support gay marriage. Indeed, I'm one such person.

curb gays from openly serving in the military

Click to expand...

Considering the military is unquestionably a government entity and one that all but the most extreme of extreme ends of conservativism (So extreme that it isn't even really correct to use it in reference to the commonly used term "conservatism") agrees as a government duty. As such, being in favor of the military possibly doing something within its own body is not necessarily hypocritical to other portions of conservatism in and of itself.

using government to force pregnancies

Click to expand...

Again, this depends fully on ones world view and particular belief regarding the opinion of whether or not legally children in the womb should be given full rights or not. If you believe the former should be the case, then its fully within the realm of conservatism and even governmental conservatism to be in favor of removing legalized abortion. Another commonly held conservative belief regarding the propre role of government is the protection of the rights of those who are unable to protect themselves, which children fall into. As such, this isn't about "forcing pregnancies" but rather protecting individual rights. For it to be hypocritical on their part the individuals would need to be against the state going in and removing a 5 year old from a house where the parent has stated an intent to murder them. You won't find many conservatives of any stripe being against that.

using the government to instill morality through a failed war on drugs

Click to expand...

This is absolutely an example where social conservatism was allowed to trump governmental conservatism. There's no real good way I've seen to justify the war on drugs to the extent its currently at in a way that satisfies by social and governmental conservatism.

using the government to promote religion

Click to expand...

In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. In cases where the government is enforcing religious views upon someone, absolutely. In cases where the government is keeping people from being able to stifle the religious views of others, then no.

using the government to export Western values at the barrel of a gun

Click to expand...

Again, an intricate issue that involves numerous other portions of conservatism as well. Not an automatically oxymoronic notion in regards to conservatisms principles by and large.

Even a social conservative on this board was noble enough to admit that he subscribes to an authoritative platform.

Click to expand...

Yes, one particular conservative. Because some social conservatism can be done in an authoritative way. Just as some liberalism can be. We've seen liberals suggesting all firearms should be confiscated...does that show that ALL liberals are in favor of confiscating firearms? Or is it the views of an isolated individual rather than an ideology?

To be perfectly honest you just seem immensely ignorant of what conservatism is and instead base your thought processes on stereotypes, hyperbole, overblown rhetoric, and hyper partisanship rather than any actual significant intellectually honest knowledge of analysis of conservative ideologies.

Yes, one particular conservative. Because some social conservatism can be done in an authoritative way. Just as some liberalism can be. We've seen liberals suggesting all firearms should be confiscated...does that show that ALL liberals are in favor of confiscating firearms? Or is it the views of an isolated individual rather than an ideology?

Click to expand...

Thank you Zyphlin. It's refreshing to see someone that doesn't adhere to faux political science political spectrums to create "you bad I good" talking points.

Antiderivative said:

There is some confusion happening here. I am talking about social conservatism, not Goldwater conservatism, not paleo-conservatism, not neo-conservatism, not movement conservatism, not RINO's, etc.

Click to expand...

Paleo-conservatives are social conservatives. Neo-conservatives are social conservatives.

One can be a social conservative without being only socially conservative. If your intention was to speak of those who are singularly and only social conservative you did a piss poor job of intimating that in any way, especially when you were speaking about it in such broad and wide ranging terms. For example you asked "are social conservatives not conservatives" a question seemingly to imply the two should be one in the same or part of one enough, not the seperate entities you speak of now.

If we're to take your meaning to be talking about not just someone who is socially conservative but someone who is ONLY socially conservative, then yes they are a conservative when it comes to their VIEWS on social issues. They are not very conservative when it comes to their methods of acting upon said views. Social Conservatives in the way you define it, which seems to be only conservative on social issues but is massively in favor of big government, would more accurately be termed as centrist then singularly "conservative" or "liberal". They share conservatives views regarding social issues as to what's best for society while sharing the liberal view that government is a tool that is best used to impliment things to improve society.

Yes, Social Conservatives as you define them could identify as "conservative" as their biggest ideological focus falls in line with conservatism. However, that does not indicate that every facet of their specific ideology is conservative.

iliveonramen said:

Thank you Zyphlin. It's refreshing to see someone that doesn't adhere to faux political science political spectrums to create "you bad I good" talking points.

Click to expand...

The flat basic "conservative or liberal" terminology is understandable in a large sense but fails miserably when you start looking deeply at it. Not to mention that the two aren't even so much a line as they are a large circle where you can go so far to one end or the other that you end up wrapping back around.

Is a guy whose against gun control, pro-life, for same sex marriage, for lower taxes across the board, for removing regulations on business, but believes in global warming a conservative? A liberal? Does how important an individual issue is to them matter? IE if he's not really that passionate about taxes at all but kind of thinks they should be low, but is super duper staunch Pro-Gay marriage does that affect his designation more than if he was equally as passionate about both those issues?

Even looking at a singular ideology there's a lot of variations. There's numerous ways for the various pillars of conservatism to step on the foot of another one, which is why we have so many variations of conservatives. Neo, Paleo, Libertarian, Authoritarian, Moderate, Populist, Hawkish, The Religious Right, and on and on and on.

Generally for me I think its the sum of ones views, both in terms of quantity and intensity, that largely places where I view that individual in terms of the more static liberal/conservative line of things.

Zyphlin said:

One can be socially conservative and support gay marriage. Indeed, I'm one such person.

Click to expand...

Would I be correct in assuming that you support gay marriage because America isn't a theocracy, but still view homosexuality as a sin?

Ikari said:

No, the GOP liked the Big Tent nature of the party. Limbaugh used to brag about it. Conservatives (of whom there are very few actual ones left) reveled in it because of the competition for ideas and platform it brought.

Click to expand...

Yep. I remember talking with someone once during college about the difference a bit with the Democrats and Republicans.

The Democrats by and large are made up of various pieces that each tend to have a specific policy issue or cause that is important to them. Environment, Abortion, Gay Rights, Welfare, Corporate Regulation, Health Care, War, etc. That individuals within the Democratic party tends to be more focused to a particular issue and may or may not have any real strong care about the other ones.

On the flip side, the Republicans are made up of various pieces that each tend to fit within a different segment of the over all ideology. While there are some single issue republican voters, by and large the different pieces tend to have strong and similar views on a wide range of things based on the small ideological segments. The Religious Right, the Libertarians, the Paleoconservatives, etc.

With Democrats the bond between them all is weaker because its not so much a broad ideological joining, but on the flip side its easier to bring them together because the individual issues have little care either way with the other issues and thus don't mind joining up for the common good of both of them.

With Republicans the bond between them is stronger as there's an overall ideological bond that's greater, but on the flip side of that its harder to bring the various pieces together because each tend to have a very strong view point regarding the other various pieces of their ideology.

The GOP NEEDS the Big Tent. I think it'll have issues and continue to have issues as long as it continues to simply ignore any particular pillar of conservatism. I've been saying for some time, the best thing for the long term health of the GOP would be to put together and actually execute a BALANCED conservative agenda. By doing so they would do things that would bother every different group in the big tent, but would provide for enough things that satisfies hte largest desires of all the various groups that it proves to be the better alternative out of the two major parties. Unfortunately, that approach has not been used significantly by them for some time.

Wake said:

Would I be correct in assuming that you support gay marriage because America isn't a theocracy, but still view homosexuality as a sin?

Click to expand...

Actually I support gay marriage because I believe that its a violation of the constitution due to the Equal Protection Clause, and I'm in favor of adhering to the constitution. My overall preference varies between removing marriage all together and changing it entirely to "civil unions" between any two individuals able to enter into a legal agreement.

Zyphlin said:

One can be socially conservative and support gay marriage. Indeed, I'm one such person.

Click to expand...

Then you are an aberration since most social conservatives do not support gay marriage. In fact, they tried to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. WTF is this personal anecdote all about? It is a flat out lie to disguise the idea that social conservatives are big government conservatives who like to use the government to instill their own brand of morality onto the masses.

Your lies are clear as day. I am not going to sit here and listen to you spew lies about how social conservatives are defenders of gay marriage. This is absolutely ****ing ludicrous and makes me question what reality you live in.

To be perfectly honest you just seem immensely ignorant of what conservatism is and instead base your thought processes on stereotypes, hyperbole, overblown rhetoric, and hyper partisanship rather than any actual significant intellectually honest knowledge of analysis of conservative ideologies.

Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest, I have no desire to carry on this conservation with you and dissect your plethora of misinformation. Your ignorance and hypocrisy is most evident.

Antiderivative said:

In fact, they tried to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Click to expand...

Some, SOME tried to amend the consistution to ban gay marriage. You have no factual evidence what so ever that everyone, or even a significantly large majority, of individuals who consider themselves socially conservative were in favor of banning gay marriage. Not to mention that the entire notion has to a point become distorted due to the demonization of the term in and of itself to somehow equate "socially conservative" to "Religious Right, enforce social views on people through government" as if they're synonyms.

Your lies are clear as day. I am not going to sit here and listen to you spew lies about how social conservatives are defenders of gay marriage. This is absolutely ****ing ludicrous and makes me question what reality you live in.

Click to expand...

The irony of you talking about someone spewing lies.

Yes, some social conservatives and the majority of the Religious Right are for big government. However, you're the one whose "spewing" things by implying repeatedly that somehow that being socially conservative requires one to also support authoritarian enforcement of said social views, which is just patentedly false.

Its 100%, completely possible to be Socially Conservative and in favor of Small Government, including in regards to social issues. Your implications to the otherwise are the statements that are running against the truth, not mine. Ron Paul is actually a rather clear example of someone who is both Socially Consrevative and Governmentally Conservative.

Zyphlin said:

Some, SOME tried to amend the consistution to ban gay marriage. You have no factual evidence what so ever that everyone, or even a significantly large majority, of individuals who consider themselves socially conservative were in favor of banning gay marriage. Not to mention that the entire notion has to a point become distorted due to the demonization of the term in and of itself to somehow equate "socially conservative" to "Religious Right, enforce social views on people through government" as if they're synonyms.

Click to expand...

And many social conservatives supported such an Amendment, but now social conservatives are trying to revise history and claim that there were against such an amendment and using big government to force their values onto everyone else.

I have heard it all now.

The irony of you talking about someone spewing lies.

Yes, some social conservatives and the majority of the Religious Right are for big government. However, you're the one whose "spewing" things by implying repeatedly that somehow that being socially conservative requires one to also support authoritarian enforcement of said social views, which is just patentedly false.

Its 100%, completely possible to be Socially Conservative and in favor of Small Government, including in regards to social issues. Your implications to the otherwise are the statements that are running against the truth, not mine. Ron Paul is actually a rather clear example of someone who is both Socially Consrevative and Governmentally Conservative.

Click to expand...

Ron Paul is an aberration and not the norm of social conservativism. Plus, Ron Paul supported the concept of DOMA and DADT before he changed his mind that he wanted government out of marriage. It was only very recently that he took a more libertarian stance.

Again, your lies are duly noticed.

Unfortunately for you, what Zyphlin has said is not a sack of lies, but rather a nuanced approach to looking at social conservatism's relationship with the rest of conservatism (which struck me as the main issue with your post). Further, it was also whether or not one's big government social conservatism prevented one from being thought of as conservative, and so on. His only fault was that he was more patient than I in elaborating for someone who clearly does not want to temper his previous assertions.

Fiddytree said:

Unfortunately for you, what Zyphlin has said is not a sack of lies, but rather a nuanced approach to looking at social conservatism's relationship with the rest of conservatism (which struck me as the main issue with your post). Further, it was also whether or not one's big government social conservatism prevented one from being thought of as conservative, and so on. His only fault was that he was more patient than I in elaborating for someone who clearly does not want to temper his previous assertions.

Click to expand...

I realize that there are a few aberrations out there. However, the majority of social conservatives use the government to instill their brand of morality onto the rest of us. Your attempts to distort and twist reality are duly noticed.

Anything else?

Antiderivative said:

And many social conservatives supported such an Amendment

Click to expand...

I never suggested otherwise. You're not going to find me ever stating that there aren't a large amount of social conservatives who forgo any other aspect of conservatism if it hinders their push for that one particular facet. There is definitely a strong and large contingent that do.

My issue is the false and incorrect presentation that to be socially conservative one MUST be that way, or that social conservativism inherently requires on to push for bigger government, both of which is just unquestionably untrue. Which is why I find it funny that you continually, wrongfully, suggest I'm lying (perhaps you don't understand what that word actually means. Let me google that for you) simply because I'm disagreeing with your assertion where as you continually and repeatedly attempt to imply that somehow to be socially conservative one MUST be in favor of big government and authoratarian even though its absolutely clear there is no such requirement.

Yes, many Social Conservatives who care ONLY about social conservatism and don't hold strongly to other conservative views do indeed embrace big government AND social conservatism. However, that doesn't change the fact it is 100% possible to both embrace social conservatism and not embrace big goverment. That's just a simple, unquestionable, undeniable, fact.

Antiderivative said:

Anything else?

Click to expand...

That it's not an oxymoron?

The only reality being twisted is that I am somehow denying that a significant amount of social conservatives are fine with government encouraging or enforcing various levels of moral conduct.