One of my conservative friends had told me once that he was "socially liberal" but a fiscal conservative. I think he contemplated (briefly) voting for Gore before giving in to the stupid side.
After reading Kos's post this morning, it makes me think that "socially liberal but fiscal conservative" approach is something of a myth: it isn't necessarily contradictory, and certainly not a reason to vote republican. (Flip)
If you're socially liberal, that probably means you're in favor of the usualy democratic touchstones, be it civil rights, choice, some form of gay rights, etc. However, "fiscal conservative" isn't a social philosophy as much as it is a statement saying "I don't want the government to pay for this stuff, at least, not in your typical Democratic 'tax-and-spend' way." Or, "I support those things, but I don't want to pay more taxes for them." (A bit selfish, but I can understand that argument.) They're not opposites --- you don't have to choose one or the other.
It sounds to me that, at face value, "socially liberal but fiscal conservative" means you can have your social causes, but you pay-as-you-go. This idea hasn't been discussed as much as it could be --- I think Kerry brought it up in a presidential debate (and Bush said something that had an 80s flashback, like "the American people pay, and you go spend their money." I think for Bush, it was one of those "Hey, I know this one" moments, even though no one had suggested that Kerry was a tax-and-spend guy.). I think HRC also mentioned it once. But it opens the door to three important points:
1. how outdated the tax-and-spend talking point is. You don't really hear "tax and spend" much anymore.
2. how if you're looking to a party that is spending tax dollars on social causes, take a look at the faith-based initiatives on the R side. (Talk about government intrusion!)
3. most importantly, "socially liberal but fiscal conservative," at face value, means the Dems score on message --- that is, if you can find a way to pay for these social causes of yours, then I'll vote for you. There is no Repug rebuttal, because the Rs know that there aren't enough social conservatives to win elections.
Sure, it may turn out to be an excuse to vote R anyway --- as in, I don't want to look like a total prick, so I'll blame the taxes --- but it's to our benefit to expose the myth for what it is.