Social liberals vs Economic liberals

[Guy_Montag]

Why is it that social liberals tend to be more economically conservative and vice versa?

It's what the two main parties you have are based on & seems an odd way for things to work.

[JohnKleeb]

1. You can be both and I am just that

[Trajan]

2. Isn't this a bifurcation fallacy ??? ..

Black and White Fallacy ? ...

[Guy_Montag]

3. I'm saying one...

tends towards economic liberalism if one is what is considered socially conservative. & v.v.

Not that all are at opposing ends of the spectrum, just that there is a tendancy that way.

[Cleita]

4. Sure reads that way.

[alonso_quijano]

5. I don't think I agree....

There are a lot of economic conservatives/social liberals; they generally think of themselves as libertarian, if not Libertarian.

But as far as economic liberals (progressive taxation, public subsidy of health care, daycare, education, safety net) who are social conservatives (pro-life, anti-affirmative action, pro-gun, anti-gay) I can think of very few. Maybe Caitlin Flanigan, but that's about it.

Where do you see this trend?

[Guy_Montag]

9. I mean

economic liberals as in: total free trade, no subsidies, no government intervention, no nationalised industries, on edit: low taxes

economic conservatives tend to be, well, in the extreme socialists, but in general support the status quo, nationalised essential services, subsidies to farmers, tarifs on imports etc.

[alonso_quijano]

11. Oh, you're using "liberal" in the libertarian sense...

(I don't think that's a very good definition for economic issues, but what the heck :) )

Economic "liberalism"/libertarianism is very regressive; it does nothing to blunt the horrible side-effects of laissez-faire capitalism. It might be "liberal," according to some, but it is not at all progressive.

Social liberalism/libertarianism is progressive, so it tends to appeal to the same people who approve of economic progressivism (which I wouldn't call "conservative" at all, as progressive economic policy is not really entrenched, and generally opposed by the forces identified as "status quo").

[leftyandproud]

13. I'm tired of these fake labels...be honest for god's sake

What are called "liberal" and "progressive" economic policies are for the most part SOCIALIST economic policies.

Call a spade a spade and don't be ashamed of what you are.

These sidestepping words really annoy me.

[alonso_quijano]

16. some of it's socialist...

Some of it's socialist. Some of it's capitalist. Some of it's even libertarian. I believe the best systems combine those qualities.

I also believe the best systems work to enrich as many as possible, and to provide for all.

I call those best systems "liberal" when I want to emphasize their combination of socialism and capitalism. I call them "progressive" when I want to emphasize their role in providing for all people.

I call myself a free market socialist. That might not be what you believe in (which is a-ok with me, and I love to hear other perspectives), but it's what I believe in. I ain't sidestepping nothin'.

[Vladimir]

18. Its the usual definition in Europe

Europeans call libertarians and specifically free-marketeers liberals. Liberal parties in Europe are generally on the right of the political spectrum.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Huh? I'm a socialist and very liberal socially.

Most of the socialists I know are much the same. While most of the social liberals are, usually, fairly liberal (with the exception of liberatarians) economically.

[sweetheart]

7. perhaps the libertarian dimension

Social liberals, are by nature libertarian that they uphold the
liberty of each individual to live as they choose.

Both parties, cater to the non-socailly liberal middle-american
stereotype, which in practice are church attending moralists. To
get their votes, both parties are willing to water down the
libertarian views.

Republicans are running a gay and potsmoker witch hunt, to say
nothing about their long standing support for racism and undermining
women's equality.

Democrats, similarly will not support equal rights for women (ON
paper, like the ERA) They are wishy washy on racism, and have
sold out to drugs companies on potsmokers.

Basically, the parties are lobbied to death using a campaign finance
system that is totally and completely corrupt. It makes both
parties beholden to interests that are not individuals, that have
an institutional adgenda in repressing liberty. Churches have
passed beyond the separation of church and state to be pseudo
political, casting a strong shadow over party politics.

Until you can break the campaign finance/Media link, the 2 big
parties will both put forward polluted politics to pay for their
corporate backers. Since women, homeless people, pot smokers,
gays and black people are not as wealthy, and not enshrouded in
corporate veils, they are free targets to attack, as the GOP has
so readily exploited these past 4 years.

Its an odd way for things to work, yet were any democracy to strip
out and have free-for-all campaign financing, likely they'd discover
a similar ilk of interests buying policy against individual liberty.

[UdoKier]

10. Dems don't support equal rights for women?

Puh-leeze. I'm pretty sure that we do. The law pretty much alrready guarantees women equal rights. The ERA would've been nice, but the dems unwillingness to try it again is only due to the fact that there are not enough votes to ratify it.

The vast majority of white working males who don't smoke pot are neither "wealthy" nor "shrouded in corporate veils". The republican party entices them with illusory dangling carrots of tax cuts (for their rich bosses). The fact that the dems doesn't do more to entice them is a constant source of frustration for me.

[sweetheart]

12. So women are equal, not.

By not standing up for an ERA, we live now 30 years afterwards and
women still have lower pay and discrimination. The democratic party
has stood on the sidelines, and is hardly innocent in its bid for
the white middle class voters you mention.

In the same breath, those white males are indeed being woo'd by the
dems, by not coming out against government racism, like the massive
black population in prisons, the gerrymandering, and income inequality. The party has gone soft on racism, to keep its white
males.

I'm sure you're less frustrated now. :-)

[UdoKier]

8. I disagree. I think social liberals are usually economic liberals....

...and social neanderthals are usually also economic neanderthals.

It's just a matter of priorities.

Some people are drawn to the party because of their passion for choice rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc. - but that doesn't mean they don't care about the poor.

Others of us who work for a living, raise kids etc. care more about raising the minimum wage, protecting our borders, supporting organized labor, etc. I'm personally still "on board" on the social issues, but "partial birth abortion" bans upset me a LOT LESS than the change in overtime rules. I just think that the overtime changes will adversely affect the lives of a LOT more people. How many people will lose their homes because the loss of income pushed them over the edge? How many will have to take an extra job and leave a child home unsupervised? I have know hundreds of people in such predicaments.

I have yet to meet a person who has had a "partial birth abortion".

[sadiesworld]

14. I think that the majority of Americans are social moderates and

economic progressives. An FDR-type populist would take this country by storm--assuming the whore media gave him/her a chance.

[neverborn]

15. Socially liberal here, economic conservative/neoliberal/classical liberal

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. I'm liberal on both, but then I am not a member of a main party.

[ContinentalOp]

19. Divide and Conquer eh? -nt-