Why can't we have a candidate that is fiscally conservative buy socially liberal

1. 74

   Elani-Leeposted 12 years ago

   Why can't we have a candidate that is fiscally conservative buy socially liberal?

   replyreport
2. 75

   michiganman567posted 12 years ago

   Because no one is going to fund a candidate like that.  The unions won't back him for the Democrats, and the Christians will not back him for a Republican.  Libertarian is about as close as your are going to get and they don't do very well in elections.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      While I may sympathize with your reluctance to see the power of the will of an informed population, this is precisely the type of thinking that opened the doors to the wolves in 1930s Deutschland. If a man is not going govern, the wolves will.

      replyreport
3. 77

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   Libertarian aren't Libertarians either. They say "freedom for all"...except this here group.Women, in Ron Paul's case.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If Ron Paul is a poor case, why use him? Libertarian still means freedom for all and their means to their ends, so long as the ends and means are justifiable.

      replyreport
4. 60

   Edbert Chanposted 12 years ago

   We can't have a candidate that is fiscally conservative but socially liberal because of a fundamental difference in conservatism and liberalism itself in America. Conservatives here believe in smaller government and do not believe in the power of a group. Rather, they believe in the power of the individual to make his own decisions and affect his own course in life. Thus, there is no need to spend money on society when the individual can sustain himself. The logical conclusion is fiscal conservatism.
   
   On the other hand, you have liberals in America who believe that the group more than anything affects the individual. Whatever happens to an individual is the result of the decisions of the people around him. Thus, there is a desire to provide a social safety net, welfare, and so on for those who have fallen too far.
   
   That's why you can't have a candidate that embodies both these ideologies. It would lead to a contradiction in the fundamental philosophy of what governs the life of an individual, not to mention appearing on both sides of the fence doesn't bode well with your camp.

   replyreport
5. 74

   Elani-Leeposted 12 years ago

   Thank you michiganman, that was a pretty insightful answer. You are probably right about that.
   
   lovemychris, would you be so kind as to explain what you mean by Ron Paul not wanting freedom for women?  I haven't heard anything about his policies that would be discrimenatory against women that aren't similar to that of the other republicans.
   
   Edbert, when I say socially liberal, I don't mean financial safety nets or entitilements. I mean issues that are fundementally religious in nature, like gay marriage and abortion. Issues like prayer in public school, and teaching creationism as science. We had a debate where pretty much every single one of the Republican candidates stated that they don't believe in evolution, a theory widely excepted in all scientific circles.
   
   I guess my question should have been why does fiscal conservatism have to go hand in hand with religious ideology?

   replyreport