I really have no patience for people who refer to themselves as — nay, praise and admire themselves for being — “socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.”
I’ve been saying and writing for years that this ubiquitous self-description is naught but a vacuous, self-congratulatory dodge, a way to feign empathy and support for addressing societal needs and social injustices in a generalized way, but only to the extent one doesn’t have to spend any money, change one’s own behavior, or take any risks in order to make any of it happen. A way to praise oneself for caring about other people’s lives, and things like discrimination and the environment, while also praising oneself for caring about “wasteful spending” and “big government” and “the National Debt®” and what-not. For being both compassionate and “responsible” at the same time. It’s the political equivalent of having one’s cake and eating it too.
Your mileage may vary, but in my experience and observation nearly everyone I’ve met who calls him/herself “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” votes solidly Republican right down the line in every election. Meaning, they only ever vote for the “fiscally conservative” part — and against the “socially liberal” part — notwithstanding (a) the GOP’s atrocious record in recent decades on fiscal matters, and (b) that “fiscally conservative” is not actually a real thing to begin with.
Of course, I have met a few liberal-Democratic voters who feel the need to justify/apologize for that preference by declaring themselves “fiscally conservative” in case the reader/listener actually still believes in the “tax-and-spend” boogeyperson from the ‘80s Republican comic-book universe. Others call themselves “fiscally conservative” based on their desire to reduce defense spending.* But most of the time, these self-described “socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrists” are straight-line Republican voters voting their own pocketbooks (or so they think) while disclaiming (and absolving themselves of) the GOP’s … well, you fill in the rest.
One way I know that “fiscally conservative” is not a real thing, is that while plenty of people describe themselves as “socially liberal” and many others call themselves “socially conservative,” not one person living has ever referred to him or herself as “fiscally liberal.” So there’s that.
Meaning, “fiscally conservative” has no political-ideological counterpart, and there’s really no one who likes the idea of its implied opposite, viz., unaffordably-high taxes and unrestrained public spending/borrowing, so in a sense everyone is “fiscally conservative” which makes calling oneself that completely, utterly pointless.
Another is that when I ask self-described “fiscally conservative” people what that self-description actually means, they say it means that they favor “lower taxes and smaller government” or some variation on that. When I ask them what “smaller government” means, they rarely get any more specific.
But here’s the kicker: When I ask which public services, benefits and protections they get, need, want or expect that they’d be willing to give up or do without in exchange for “lower taxes and smaller government,” they have absolutely no idea. If anything, they can only identify public benefits, services and protections that other people get, need, want, or expect.* Some of them think that they don’t actually get, want, need or expect anything from the government, so why should they pay for things that only other people get, need or want? The jig is usually up at that point.
[* — That includes liberal/Democratic voters who think we should spend less on defense, which I happen to agree with; after all, nothing is more expensive, and less useful to the average citizen, than the unlimited supply of military hardware that no one ever seems to ask whether “we” can “afford” or how “we” are going to “pay for” it. But the point here is that no one, in my experience and observation, who describes him or herself as “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” has been able to identify something that they, themselves personally, get, want or need from the government that they would be willing to give up or do without in exchange for “lower taxes and smaller government.”]
Now along comes Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks CEO mulling a run for President of the United States and calling himself a “socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist who would love to vote for a rational Democrat and get Trump out of the White House.” (emphasis added).
Barf.
Presumably, “rational” here means “fiscally conservative” because we presume all Democrats are “socially liberal” hence only the “rational” ones are also “fiscally conservative” just like Mr. Schultz himself. But that aside, it pains me to hear this “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” BS given any more traction or validity in public. Again, maybe it’s me, but in my view calling oneself “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” is not only nauseatingly self-congratulatory but also so disingenuously, annoyingly safe that it’s become almost everyone’s default setting/fall-back position, even though it’s meaningless. Everyone says it, everyone lets everyone else get away with saying it, and everyone pats themselves and everyone else on the back for saying it, and I think that has to stop. I think it has to be challenged, exposed, and eradicated from the lexicon.
I’m sorry, Mr. Schultz, but calling yourself a “socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist” doesn’t impress me. Not one bit. Perhaps you could explain to us which part(s) of your “socially liberal” agenda would have to be sacrificed to your “fiscally conservative” predilections, and vice-versa. Until then, stay the hell out of it.