I just met the only person I can think of who confessed to be socially conservative and fiscally liberal. It weirded everybody out. But an argument could be made that people actually act more morally when they're "coddled" by leftist policies. Just a late-night thought. The link is more meant to illustrate the idea than anything else, although it's a fairly inspired bit of Bush bashing in its own right.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
HonoreDB: I consider myself a social conservative and fiscal liberal-- but the article is lacking.
To give a nod to a well discussed topic on Hatrack, the president has little direct control over the economy. To be elected president, you have to give people the illusion that you have you hand on the pulse of the nation's wealth. The reality is that the president can only influence economics-- not control it. And what influence is brought to bear may take years to uncover-- or recover from, as it were.
I have a very difficult time seeing how Bush can be blamed for job loss and the economic malaise some people see here in America. (The deficit-- I think that can be placed on his shoulders though-- I mean, a colossal tax break in the middle of a war? Stupid pandering).
The article's rhetoric on abortion stats (particularly that women have them for economic reasons) seems a little shaky to me. I remember seeing studies that contradicted the information given, but I don't have a link yet. That said-- more should be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I'm in full favor of candid, respectful, sex-ed classes funded by tax payer dollars.
The article draws a blame line on 'because there are more job losses, men are less likely to marry their baby's mama, resulting in more abortions.' I think this is a bit of a stretch. Nor do I particularly want to encourage the idea of 'Baby = marriage.' If they weren't responsible enough to avoid pregnancy in the first place, can we be sure they're ready for marriage?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What criteria does one use to define conservatism/liberalism?
For me, social conservatism means I favor legislation against elective abortion, and I oppose legislation that would give homosexual couples the right to adopt wards of the state.
However, I am pro-gun banning, and (mostly) anti-capital punishment. I could probably be swayed by the pro-marijuana movement if I could ever look at the topic without thinking about the number of people in mental hospitals who started their descent into madness on a reefer.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would you define "fiscally liberal?" Does that mean you are more of a democrat in terms of limiting big business and having government programs for health care and education? If so, I am socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I score on political tests as a socialist, but am very committed to conservative moral standards.
I always get confused, though, with the word "liberal," because in France (which I study), someone who is "liberal" politically is what we would call a libertarian.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
