Approaching the "fiscal cliff" (whatever that actually means), a new political hybrid emerges. Conciliatory Democrats gawking at overt spending increases explain their true political ideology... "I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal". Oh, well that makes sense. NOT!
What does that mean to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal?
When you meet these people (and they are everywhere!), ask them. They'll be more than happy to explain their seemingly peaceful hybrid. Here's an example mini-dialogue:
Them: I think we should manage our money responsibly... like anyone else. But I'm also in favor of abortion, universal healthcare, and welfare. Republicans typically don't support those things.
Me: Who should spend money on those things?
Them: We should. Don't you feel that we should support people in need?
Me: I do... that's why I do!
Them: What do you mean?
Me: I work a job to support my family... I give additional savings to my local church or mission... and I muster what I can to assist when neighbors appear to be in need.
Them: Yeah, well, I mean. We all do that. That's just a part of being a good human being... taking care of those around us.
Me: 47% of Americans don't pay taxes. An estimated 18% of Americans are unemployed, underemployed, or have stopped searching for work. Are these the Americans that are taking care of those in need?
Them: Well, we should be taking care of them... that's my point.
Me: Who should be taking care of them? The 53% that do pay taxes ... the 82% of working-aged Americans that have secured reasonable job security (for now)? Or do we each have an obligation to take care of our own families, missions, and neighbors... as you previously stated?
Them: We all have an obligation to our own families... that would be silly not too. But we should help those who are in need, too.
Me: Who should help them?
Them: We should. I already said that.
Me: Who is "we"?
Them: You and me... you're starting to irritate me!
Ultimately, we find that a reasonable discussion lends a reasonable conclusion. Most of us want to be financially conservative... which typically indicates that we want to restrain unnecessary expenditures and live within our means. Most of us believe this way because this is how we are forced to make ends meet in our homes. If we spent like the federal government in our homes, we'd probably be forcibly removed from our homes, cars, and children... bankrupt and destitute on the streets... because lenders wouldn't give us money we hadn't proven to pay back, and job markets wouldn't hire us for jobs because we hadn't proven ourselves responsible.
So, the "fiscally conservative" sentiment reigns true of most Americans... conceded. Yet, what of social liberalism? When I speak with most people (Democrats or Independents) who espouse this ideology, they almost always concede each American's individual obligation to each other. While the Federal Government can be a vessel for giving/charity/assistance, help for those in need must be derived from the people for the people. Circling back on a previous notion, who then is responsible for meeting the needs of those in need? We are... as most social liberals will admit. So, where does the Federal Government fit in?
This, I posture, leads to infinite confusions about Federal mechanisms for assisting people in need. Debate as to whether the private (us) or public (government) sector more adequately fulfills specific needs typically ensues. Nonetheless, the concept of "us" as "you and me" NOT as "you and me via a federal medium" prevails.
In circuitous fashion I lament that most people espousing this absurd hybrid of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism express libertarian hues. For the tried-and-true libertarian, the predominance of responsibility lies on the individual and not the government... for who can take care of his neighbor better than another neighbor? Libertarians espouse financial responsibility... because they try to limit the size of Federal Government... typically to a size representative to the express powers in the Constitution. The natural reduction in government and associated public services streamlines federal taxes, federal laws, and federal entitlements (which some will undoubtedly miss).
Yet, libertarians typically espouse social liberalism... not in the collective sense of the term but in the independent sense. A libertarian may not believe in abortion, but he doesn't believe in the Federal Government's right to abridge or revoke that right to the populace at large. With more rights decentralized to the state and municipal level, libertarians believe (as most of us innately do) that our individual mandate to assist each other leads to greater efficiencies in local welfare programs, state-lead medicare, or timeless good samaritan-ism.
Next time you hear of someone richly espousing their enlightened political ideology... fiscally conservative while socially liberal... shake their hand and observe their befuddlement as you say, "We need a few more LIBERTARIANS like you to get our country back on track!"
What does that mean to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal?
When you meet these people (and they are everywhere!), ask them. They'll be more than happy to explain their seemingly peaceful hybrid. Here's an example mini-dialogue:
***
Me: What does it mean to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal?Them: I think we should manage our money responsibly... like anyone else. But I'm also in favor of abortion, universal healthcare, and welfare. Republicans typically don't support those things.
Me: Who should spend money on those things?
Them: We should. Don't you feel that we should support people in need?
Me: I do... that's why I do!
Them: What do you mean?
Me: I work a job to support my family... I give additional savings to my local church or mission... and I muster what I can to assist when neighbors appear to be in need.
Them: Yeah, well, I mean. We all do that. That's just a part of being a good human being... taking care of those around us.
Me: 47% of Americans don't pay taxes. An estimated 18% of Americans are unemployed, underemployed, or have stopped searching for work. Are these the Americans that are taking care of those in need?
Them: Well, we should be taking care of them... that's my point.
Me: Who should be taking care of them? The 53% that do pay taxes ... the 82% of working-aged Americans that have secured reasonable job security (for now)? Or do we each have an obligation to take care of our own families, missions, and neighbors... as you previously stated?
Them: We all have an obligation to our own families... that would be silly not too. But we should help those who are in need, too.
Me: Who should help them?
Them: We should. I already said that.
Me: Who is "we"?
Them: You and me... you're starting to irritate me!
***
Ultimately, we find that a reasonable discussion lends a reasonable conclusion. Most of us want to be financially conservative... which typically indicates that we want to restrain unnecessary expenditures and live within our means. Most of us believe this way because this is how we are forced to make ends meet in our homes. If we spent like the federal government in our homes, we'd probably be forcibly removed from our homes, cars, and children... bankrupt and destitute on the streets... because lenders wouldn't give us money we hadn't proven to pay back, and job markets wouldn't hire us for jobs because we hadn't proven ourselves responsible.
So, the "fiscally conservative" sentiment reigns true of most Americans... conceded. Yet, what of social liberalism? When I speak with most people (Democrats or Independents) who espouse this ideology, they almost always concede each American's individual obligation to each other. While the Federal Government can be a vessel for giving/charity/assistance, help for those in need must be derived from the people for the people. Circling back on a previous notion, who then is responsible for meeting the needs of those in need? We are... as most social liberals will admit. So, where does the Federal Government fit in?
This, I posture, leads to infinite confusions about Federal mechanisms for assisting people in need. Debate as to whether the private (us) or public (government) sector more adequately fulfills specific needs typically ensues. Nonetheless, the concept of "us" as "you and me" NOT as "you and me via a federal medium" prevails.
In circuitous fashion I lament that most people espousing this absurd hybrid of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism express libertarian hues. For the tried-and-true libertarian, the predominance of responsibility lies on the individual and not the government... for who can take care of his neighbor better than another neighbor? Libertarians espouse financial responsibility... because they try to limit the size of Federal Government... typically to a size representative to the express powers in the Constitution. The natural reduction in government and associated public services streamlines federal taxes, federal laws, and federal entitlements (which some will undoubtedly miss).
Yet, libertarians typically espouse social liberalism... not in the collective sense of the term but in the independent sense. A libertarian may not believe in abortion, but he doesn't believe in the Federal Government's right to abridge or revoke that right to the populace at large. With more rights decentralized to the state and municipal level, libertarians believe (as most of us innately do) that our individual mandate to assist each other leads to greater efficiencies in local welfare programs, state-lead medicare, or timeless good samaritan-ism.
Next time you hear of someone richly espousing their enlightened political ideology... fiscally conservative while socially liberal... shake their hand and observe their befuddlement as you say, "We need a few more LIBERTARIANS like you to get our country back on track!"
No comments:
Post a Comment