Political Ideologies

[cybercoma]

I'm curious where people fit and what they think of the idea of the social/fiscal conservative/liberal dichotomies.

The first thing that strikes me is our use of terms. Liberal is supposed to come from liberty. What we would consider fiscal conservatism is actually fiscal liberalism ideologically. I think what's strange is that social liberal bears the reverse meaning. If you're socially liberal, you believe in people's liberty in their personal/social lives. However, fiscally liberal seems to carry the meaning that you're for restraint, controls, and government spending. To do that, you need to take money from citizens, which is not very liberal at all.

I'm not sure if I'm making it clear, but the terminology can be confusing and even misleading. Having said that, we toss these terms around enough that I hope it's safe to assume people here understand what they mean.

Here's the strange thing... has the ever been anyone anywhere that fits into category 4: fiscal liberal and social conservative? I can't even imagine how a person with those views would perceive various arguments and what their responses would be. It's a strange position that might be worth imagining.

[Bonam]

I voted socially liberal and fiscal conservative. I think a large proportion of Canadians would identify that way. That being said, there are various levels of social liberalism. To me, tolerance and non-discrimination, allowing people to live as they wish, is what social liberalism means.

However, to many, social liberalism seems to mean using government power and money to advance certain groups perceived as historically disadvantaged, to control speech so as to prevent offense to certain groups, etc. This is sometimes referred to with terms like "social justice" and I strongly disagree with it and believe it stands in direct opposition to actually being socially liberal.

Moving on, unlike the three other terms, the term "fiscal liberal" is not one that I have seen used by political commentators or analysts. Given the current political arena, "fiscal liberal" would mean someone with left-leaning views on how the government should collect and spend money. The generally used term for that now is "socialist", which can variously be seen as an acceptable term in some circles and derogatory in others. Nonetheless I'll use your terminology in this thread.

How would a fiscally liberal social conservative see the world? While few people describe themselves this way, I think many social conservatives are also "fiscally liberal". Using government power to monitor and control people's lifestyle choices costs a lot of money, and wanting the government to go ahead and spend that money is a sign of fiscal liberalism. A not atypical 50-60 year old Republican party member is a good example of this: they want their entitlement payouts, and they want the government to ban abortion and gay marriage. So I'd say your 4th category is certainly widely represented, though the people in it likely don't see themselves as "fiscally liberal".

Edited April 25, 2012 by Bonam

[TimG]

I would say the Pope is fiscal liberal and social conservative.

I think the association of social conservatives with fiscal conservatives is a matter of convenience. Two different groups with different aims choose to support each other to achieve political power. There is no rational reason for the two views to be linked.

Edited April 25, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I would say the Pope is fiscal liberal and social conservative.

Good example. I can see that.

[Guest Derek L]

I too voted socially liberal and fiscally conservative for the ease of the poll, but I’d consider myself a “classic liberal”, or simply put, if I’m not paying for it, those lacking in mental capacity (Children and the mentally handicapped ) & maturity aren’t endangered and “it’s” not effecting others in a negative way, it’s none of my, or the Government’s business…….

As for the fiscal aspect, I don’t like being bribed with my own money. I can agree, to certain extents, with subsidizing societies actual needs but not societies wants, as I don’t agree with other’s determining what my “fair share” is to be paid in taxes of my income when they don’t pay an equal percentage as I. As I feel Government should always be the last resort in any maters, I also feel Government does have a place in acting as an objective referee in society, no more, no less.

Too specific??

[dre]

THere ARE no fiscal conservatives on this forum, and almost none in Canada.

[mentalfloss]

Social and fiscal reasonable.

[cybercoma]

There are certainly a number of people whose posts would lead me to believe they are socially conservative, but everyone seems to be picking socially liberal ideologies. I wonder if those folks just haven't voted or if there's a sort of cognitive dissonance going on here.

[mentalfloss]

There are certainly a number of people whose posts would lead me to believe they are socially conservative, but everyone seems to be picking socially liberal ideologies. I wonder if those folks just haven't voted or if there's a sort of cognitive dissonance going on here.

Ya think?

[Newfoundlander]

There have been social conservatives within the Liberal Party, so they would likely have a more left-wing economic view (if that's what you mean by fiscal liberal).

[cybercoma]

There have been social conservatives within the Liberal Party, so they would likely have a more left-wing economic view (if that's what you mean by fiscal liberal).

Yeah. That's what I mean.

[Topaz]

In my view, the ideologies of political parties are changing and the way a party is run is more by the person in charge and not necessarily by party ideas. Just look at he present leader of the party. Harper, alliance/ conservative, NDP- liberal/NDP and Rae NDP/Liberal, so using the both ideas from their parties, which would be the best for Canada? A mixture alliance/conservative,which we see where that has gotten us, or a NDP/Liberal ideas? In the last election 60% didn't vote for the Tories so, would one say that majority would want a NDP/Lberal government?

[Newfoundlander]

Yeah. That's what I mean.

I don't think it's really that odd that a social conservative, someone who wants the state to be involved with moral issues, would also have the view that the state should play a greater role in the economy. Rick Santorum had been criticized for not being fiscally conservative and being in favour of big government social programs.

[Newfoundlander]

In my view, the ideologies of political parties are changing and the way a party is run is more by the person in charge and not necessarily by party ideas. Just look at he present leader of the party. Harper, alliance/ conservative, NDP- liberal/NDP and Rae NDP/Liberal, so using the both ideas from their parties, which would be the best for Canada? A mixture alliance/conservative,which we see where that has gotten us, or a NDP/Liberal ideas? In the last election 60% didn't vote for the Tories so, would one say that majority would want a NDP/Lberal government?

Don't matter who the leader of the NDP is. They are only aloud to support what the grassroots tells them and are not aloud to have ideas of their own. If Harper was leader of the NDP they'd have the same policies. Now of course I'm not a Dipper but that's what I've come to understand thanks to this forum.

[Guest Manny]

Don't matter who the leader of the NDP is. They are only aloud to support what the grassroots tells them and are not aloud to have ideas of their own. If Harper was leader of the NDP they'd have the same policies. Now of course I'm not a Dipper but that's what I've come to understand thanks to this forum.

The party would not select Harper, if his views were drastically different from the direction the party wants to go in. It's not up to one person. The executives set the overall agenda, by the fact that they are made up of a team of politically like-minded people with a specific vision. That vision is partly from a traditional position on issues, and partly strategic in the perception of what the voting public wants to hear.

And this is where the lines get blurred, leading to much confusion of the labels we apply to our politics. If the party perceives there is a gap in the political spectrum that they can fill, they pander to that group in an attempt to pick up voters. It becomes a sad spectacle. All they want at this stage is the power of course and once they have it, they'll do what they want because there is no immediate recourse for the public.

It's this blurring of the lines that makes people misunderstand what their political ideology is.

Do people even have a political ideology, per se? Not really, most normal people are in fact a complex spectrum of ideas and opinions, whether it be economics, social policy or law. Even within those, there can be complex variation that cannot be pigeonholed or labelled grossly "conservative", "liberal". Only partisan shills insist on wholly adhering to their labels, at all costs.

[Guest Manny]

Like for me, my views are complex. In a lot of ways I would say I am a social conservative, but I don't believe in giving the government power to enforce some kind of moral view. I choose my own moral views, not what the government says. I don't support punitive measures for crimes that are perhaps amoral, but non-criminal. It's more of a cultural thing, not a political thing. That's not the role of government to me.

Financially I believe in reduction of the deficit, less government spending, and less government control. But at the same time, there should be some level of regulation to protect health, the environment, and to protect the classes from exploitation. There should be a social safety net. So it is a careful balance of different elements. The system should provide a reasonable level of fairness and opportunity.

Despite that there will always be some unfairness, some people who find ways to screw the system through corruption, and some who fall through the cracks. It will always be a struggle to fine-tune the system to meet differing demands in different times. Utopia will never be achieved.

Edit- The poll cannot accommodate me. I refuse to be identified by an "option-box"

Edited April 25, 2012 by Manny

[Michael Hardner]

However, to many, social liberalism seems to mean using government power and money to advance certain groups perceived as historically disadvantaged, to control speech so as to prevent offense to certain groups, etc. This is sometimes referred to with terms like "social justice" and I strongly disagree with it and believe it stands in direct opposition to actually being socially liberal.

Jumping on 2 points:

"Advancing" disadvantaged people is relative to their current level of rights. "Advancing" the disadvantaged is indeed social justice if they have been denied rights. I don't see what's wrong with that.

I have a bigger issue with this: The idea that preventing "offense" is a goal of social liberalism is an odd one to me. The MOST discussion we have about offending people seems to come from people who are offended that the pride parade happens and that they may happen to see nudity. Are there people on here who feel that social liberals are campaigning against being offended ?

[Michael Hardner]

An interesting thread, but the choices themselves highlight how our thinking is rooted in the past. The two axes submitted to measure one's position here are: spending and social thinking.

With regards to spending, look at how people spending their personal money today. That trend is reflected in government:

- lots of debt

- short term thinking

- people want better and better value

So the parties have all adopted policies that make them more similar, and that reflect these trends in the general public: more services, lower taxes, more debt are two examples that stand out.

With regards to social issues, the main role the parties play is to provide a forum for discussion. For the most part, these things seem to play out in the courts so as far as I can see politicians are just talking and enjoying attention.

My perspective is that we need to stop appealing to broad and disinterested demographics and to create a public of engaged, interested, long-term thinkers who have more influence, who vote and who influence others. These people will discuss social issues and matter of conscience, although the influence on policy is not great. They will, more importantly, discuss the grocery list of government spending and find ways to be more mature about spending. And... a new mature breed of politician is ready to respond to these people, despite what the cynics will tell you.

[eyeball]

An interesting thread, but the choices themselves highlight how our thinking is rooted in the past. The two axes submitted to measure one's position here are: spending and social thinking.

Isn't it one axis between two poles?

If so the axes that measures one's position between authoritarian or libertarian governance is probably far more relevant. That said it seems pretty obvious which end social conservatives subscribe to.

[cybercoma]

Isn't it one axis between two poles?

If so the axes that measures one's position between authoritarian or libertarian governance is probably far more relevant. That said it seems pretty obvious which end social conservatives subscribe to.

No he's right. Two axes (each with two poles) on spending and social thinking. This gives 4 different combinations (or quadrants) that people would fall into.

[eyeball]

No he's right. Two axes (each with two poles) on spending and social thinking. This gives 4 different combinations (or quadrants) that people would fall into.

Okay, I still doubt if even four is enough to represent something that seems to be increasingly multipolar and even fluid sometimes.

[dre]

Isn't it one axis between two poles?

If so the axes that measures one's position between authoritarian or libertarian governance is probably far more relevant. That said it seems pretty obvious which end social conservatives subscribe to.

This is exactly why the political class frames things in these terms. They love the left/right axis because theres a gigantic powerfull mega spending government at both ends of it.

The authoritarian libertarian dimension is clearly not something they are going to be comfortable with. If people start self-identifying along these lines, it could cause a lot of trouble for them.

[TimG]

There are certainly a number of people whose posts would lead me to believe they are socially conservative

Socially conservative is a broad brush. What you call social conservative is not likely the same as what someone else calls social conservative.

[fellowtraveller]

I don't think it's really that odd that a social conservative, someone who wants the state to be involved with moral issues, would also have the view that the state should play a greater role in the economy. Rick Santorum had been criticized for not being fiscally conservative and being in favour of big government social programs.

Not trying to quibble, but I don't think a social conservative is necessarily the only perspective that wants the state to be involved in moral issues.

Social liberals want the RIGHT for choice on abortion, the RIGHT to same sex marriage, the RIGHT to publicly funded health care and education. And they want the government to legislate those rights. On the other side, social conservatives want the opposite, and want that in writng as law too.

So both sides want to arrive at different destinations on the same path, they both want the state dictating moral issues.

And when we argue, we all want to pigeonhole others into a convenient way of thinking.

I reckon the great majpority of Canadians are socially conservative and fiscally moderate, it is just a nmatter of degree.

[bleeding heart]

Not trying to quibble, but I don't think a social conservative is necessarily the only perspective that wants the state to be involved in moral issues.

Social liberals want the RIGHT for choice on abortion, the RIGHT to same sex marriage, the RIGHT to publicly funded health care and education. And they want the government to legislate those rights. On the other side, social conservatives want the opposite, and want that in writng as law too.

So both sides want to arrive at different destinations on the same path, they both want the state dictating moral issues.

And when we argue, we all want to pigeonhole others into a convenient way of thinking.

I reckon the great majpority of Canadians are socially conservative and fiscally moderate, it is just a nmatter of degree.

I agree with much of this, but whether the great majority of Canadians are "socially conservative" is certainly arguable.

However, as you imply eslewhere in your post, it sometimes comes down to a problem of definition.