“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.” The Epitaph for America’s Future?

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,563
Reaction score
41
Location
KS
“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.” The Epitaph for America’s Future?
Posted by Ausonius

Many have read a version of the following statement from “moderates,” defined here as people who want to seem high-minded and objective by staying “above the fray.”

“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.”

The goal in this essay is to demonstrate the illogicality of such an oxymoron. For ultimately fiscal conservatism will be impossible, if you support social liberalism.

How does one define “social liberalism” anyway? Since I do not want to be accused of setting up strawmen to knock down, in good faith I offer the following examples of social liberalism: antagonism toward racial profiling, protecting children, and (contradictorily) killing unborn children.

Liberal political scientist Benjamin Barber, an emeritus professor at Rutgers, offers an explanation for one aspect of political correctness:
“On the belief that while classes of people and categories of action may be statistically correlated with certain kinds of behavior, those correlations do not warrant encroaching on the liberty and rights of individuals. No one is to be prejudged in their behavior or motives simply because they belong to a certain class or category.”
See:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/forgiving-political-corre_b_369419.html

On the surface, no Conservative will argue with this. But consider the “failed attack” by the infamous Shoe Bomber (Richard Reid). One of the most expensive aspects of Barber’s purist attitude has been occurring for years in our airports: because of political correctness, profiling for possible suspects has not been allowed. The result is that 9-year old little girls from Cincinnati, as well as 90-year old grandmothers from Pittsburgh, are stopped, scanned, sniffed, debriefed, de-shoed, and delayed because social liberalism says not to use stereotypes…ever, even though Richard Reid and his ilk do not fit the profile of a 9-year old girl from Ohio.

Americans have been led to think, therefore, that such high-mindedness is the price one pays for safety. And what exactly is that price? It is not just an annoying, exasperated feeling while standing in line. Roughly 50 million people per month pass through American airports per month. If we place the very modest price of $10.00 on the head of every passenger for their lost time (obviously the time of many travelers is worth much more!), it means that half a billion dollars are lost every month to the American economy, $6 Billion per year, $60 billion since Mr. Shoe Bomber’s antics.

And we say and believe that his attack failed! This estimate obviously does not take into account the tax dollars spent for all the increased surveillance and the equipment: and I will openly admit, the waddling and possibly illiterate T.S.A. guards I have seen do not make me feel safer. They make me feel less wealthy, knowing that as government employees they have better benefits and pensions than I ever will!

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby offered this opinion in an essay from August 23, 2006:
“No sensible person imagines that ethnic or religious profiling alone can stop every terrorist plot. But it is illogical and potentially suicidal not to take account of the fact that so far every suicide-terrorist plotting to take down an American plane has been a radical Muslim man. It is not racism or bigotry to argue that the prevention of Islamist terrorism necessitates a special focus on Muslim travelers, just as it is not racism or bigotry when police trying to prevent a Mafia killing pay closer attention to Italians.”
Profiling will not eliminate airport security, but one wonders, if political correctness were tossed aside, could not the loss in time and efficiency be greatly reduced?

Social liberalism has led to an attitude of allowing government intervention to protect us from ourselves, from cars, from saturated fat, from incorrect sneezing, from almost any situation which can generate a bureaucracy. OHSA in the Department of Labor is now approaching $2 Billion for its budget. And of course, we must protect the children: much spending is done in the name of helping children.

But where are the limits? One small personal example: when my wife was a principal of a grade school, the board wanted to install new playground equipment. She was given a 27-page booklet from the FedGov on playground safety. It seems that the FedGov’s bureaucrats had mandated that a playground slide had to have “9 inches of mulch at the bottom,” otherwise…lawsuits were possible for not following Federal guidelines. Now who decided that “9 inches of mulch” had to be used, and how? Bureaucrats! You can imagine them in lab coats and holding clipboards, while they put crash-dummies on the slide to discover the proper depth of mulch to protect the delicate derrieres of American 9-year old children.

“Your tax dollars at work!” “Where are the limits?” Obviously none exist.

Probably most Americans do not realize that their government is involved in such minutiae: child safety taken to manic extremes is one of the unintended consequences of social liberalism.

Although not all welfare goes to children, they are the main reason often given by politicians for supporting the welfare state. And of course over the last c. 80 years, governments have taken over from the churches, private charities, families, and private individuals the care for the poor or the temporarily indigent: which tradition would be more efficient in dealing with poverty, more caring, and more likely to prevent it from increasing?

The Heritage Foundation offers the following horrifying information for the “social liberal-fiscal conservative” to contemplate:
“Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).”

“According to President Obama’s budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years (FY 2009 to FY 2018). This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a poor family of four.”
(My emphasis above)

See: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/sr0067.cfm

In theory of course, that wipes out poverty! But we know it will not! Social liberalism does not stop poverty: if welfare-state bureaucracies actually lessened poverty, they would put themselves out of work. It is to the bureaucrats’ advantage to fertilize poverty!

However, human fertilization is something of which social liberals are usually skeptical. And here we touch upon abortion: I am aware that purely moral arguments are enough to argue against killing unborn children. The point here, however, is our “social liberal-fiscal conservative” will claim that abortion should be allowed, that it actually saves money for society, and that anyway, should not a true conservative keep government away from telling people what they can do with their bodies?

In a study called Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births by Lott and Whitley, the authors examine the costs to society of Roe vs. Wade over time. One finds the following conclusion on p.18:
“The higher estimated increases in murder imply that legalizing abortion raised the number of murders in 1998 by 1,230 and raised total annual victimization costs from all crime by at least $4.5 billion.”
See: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=lepp_papers

Note that $4.5 Billion is for one year only. Probably a good number of RedState readers are already acquainted with demographic researcher Dennis Howard’s estimate that since Roe vs. Wade the U.S. economy has lost $37 Trillion dollars due to the loss of population. While you can debate how productive the aborted babies would have been, how many might have become criminals, welfare mothers, etc., one must ultimately assume that most people, even from the lower classes, are honest and want to succeed. So even if Howard is wildly off by 90%, that would still mean nearly a loss of $4 Trillion, which would come in handy right now to save the U.S. partially from bankruptcy! The cost to enforce anti-abortion laws would hardly affect such a sum.

Legal abortion, of course, was only part of the wider so-called Sexual Revolution 40 years ago, spawning the additional expenses of higher divorce rates (“no-fault divorce” also being part of a “socially liberal” agenda), higher illegitimacy rates, rises in STD’s and AIDS, etc. (I recall leftist columnist Ellen Goodman in the early 1980’s insisting that a crash program to cure AIDS was absolutely essential, not just for curing the afflicted, but to preserve the Sexual Revolution, i.e. to let people have casual sex with no consequences.)

I could continue into vaguer territory: what are the economic consequences of a society where mediocrity is extolled in a quest for fairness, where schools cancel awards ceremonies for fear of offending somebody, or, worse, where everyone is given an award, thus making the achievements of true winners meaningless? In the cartoon-movie The Incredibles, which shows a society where superheroes have been shut down by lawyers for the destruction and extra-constitutionality involved when the “supers” battle villains, one of the characters opines: “If everyone is super, then no one is.”

What is the cost of that kind of social liberalism/political correctness? How many future Bach’s, Curie’s, Edison’s, Einstein’s, Galileo’s, Michelangelo’s, Mother Teresa’s, Schoenberg’s, or Wright’s (Orville, Wilbur, as well as Frank Lloyd) are being stifled and stunted in our increasingly hostile-to-excellence society, or worse, are now part of hospital waste?

“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.”

Let that not be the epitaph for America’s future.
 
In this context when someone says they're a social liberal it doesn't mean they nessesarily support liberal government spending programs.

It means someone who manages their money well but also someone who minds their own business and doesn't moralize about lifestyles.

Being social in the context of a social networking site like MySpace or Facebook.

Someone who says their social is different than saying they're a socialist.
 
This really has to do with the way the political left in this country has bastardized the word "liberal" and, as they so often do, hijacked the word to mean something entirely different than it's original meaning.

The vast majority of us in this country are in fundamental agreement on federal issues. The divisions usually appear as a result of effective branding and misrepresentation by political opportunists and a fundamental LACK of understanding of the constitution.

Far too many people don't understand, or care about, the vastly different constitutional roles of the state and federal governments.

I have a Washington, D.C. liberal friend. He's an attorney.
But he's also a federalist.
That usually means that despite or social disagreements, we both usually agree on the role of the federal government in the problem.

None.

Most of the "social liberal" issues are issues that should be resolved locally.
 
In this context when someone says they're a social liberal it doesn't mean they necessarily support liberal government spending programs.

It means someone who manages their money well but also someone who minds their own business and doesn't moralize about lifestyles.

It is more complex then that. This article is simply showing one way in which the two positions are incompatible. The more obvious way is that you cannot support certain programs like welfare and be fiscal conservative; these programs necessitate paying for them. To ignore that fact would make you more irrational then either end of the philosophical spectrum. Inevitably with these people it seems that the "socially liberal" side of things wins out.

As to the "moralizing about lifestyles", a better understanding of what conservatism is and is not would help.
Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.
 
Let's hypothetically put it this way.
I don't want to give people handouts (fiscally conservative) but I don't judge them by their lifestyle and am comfortable if/when I'm around them (socially liberal)

Also when someone says they're fiscally conservative they could be refering to themselves and how they manage their money and not so much about how the government manages money and programs.

IMO I would say someone who calls themselves a social liberal is primarily refering to being comfortable theoretically and in reality with minorities, gays, and people living other alternative lifestyles.
 
I don't want to give people handouts (fiscally conservative) but I don't judge them by their lifestyle and am comfortable if/when I'm around them (socially liberal)

BS! EVERYONE judges. Some may keep that judgment to them selves, some vocalize to varying degrees depending on the appropriateness of the circumstance, etc. and some (NOT conservatives) try and impose those moral judgments on the rest of society. But the fact is that everyone makes judgments; it is human nature.

Also when someone says they're fiscally conservative they could be refering to themselves and how they manage their money and not so much about how the government manages money and programs.

The same is true of being socially conservative. As Russell Kirk points out...
It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

IMO I would say someone who calls themselves a social liberal is primarily refering to being comfortable theoretically and in reality with minorities, gays, and people living other alternative lifestyles.

And conservative are not tolerant of that?
 
Social liberalism has led to an attitude of allowing government intervention to protect us from ourselves, from cars, from saturated fat, from incorrect sneezing, from almost any situation which can generate a bureaucracy. OHSA in the Department of Labor is now approaching $2 Billion for its budget. And of course, we must protect the children: much spending is done in the name of helping children.

What does this paragraph have to do with social liberalism? If someone believes that society shouldn't allow personal judgment to impose restrictions on others - what does that have to do with OSHA's budget? The author of this bit of silliness has really expanded the idea of social liberal. Just because I don't place any judgment (and shag - a little aside here - I don't place any judgment on that, publicly or privately, or just within myself...) on someone because of their sexual preference has some sort of tie-in with on the job safety?

Go Nothug!!!!!:)
 
What does this paragraph have to do with social liberalism?

Social justice (what defines social liberalism) is imposing certain morals on society.

The author of this bit of silliness has really expanded the idea of social liberal.

No, the author is characterizing social liberalism very accurately...

I don't place any judgment (and shag - a little aside here - I don't place any judgment on that, publicly or privately, or just within myself...)

Unless you are utterly unaware of a certain activity, it is impossible to not make a judgment. Even if you simply accept and tolerate the activity, that is a moral judgment. Moral judgment isn't simply despising something or praising something; that is simply the extremes of the dichotomy that is moral judgment.

The question is; what is done with that moral judgment; how far is it taken?
 
Social justice (what defines social liberalism) is imposing certain morals on society.
And whose definition incorporates this tying social justice with social liberal?

Unless you are utterly unaware of a certain activity, it is impossible to not make a judgment. Even if you simply accept and tolerate the activity, that is a moral judgment. Moral judgment isn't simply despising something or praising something; that is simply the extremes of the dichotomy that is moral judgment.

So absolutely every activity in existence has a moral judgment? Walking to the store has a moral judgment by me? Nope shag - not at all.

The question is; what is done with that moral judgment.
I don't understand this shag? How does OSHA relate to how gays are treated in American society?
 
And whose definition incorporates this tying social justice with social liberal?

Are you claiming that social justice is not tied to modern liberalism?

So absolutely every activity in existence has a moral judgment?

That is not what I said and you know it. Misrepresentation doesn't become you...

I don't understand this shag? How does OSHA relate to how gays are treated in American society?

No one said it did. Misdirection doesn't help your argument...
 
I don't understand this shag? How does OSHA relate to how gays are treated in American society?
1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject

6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory

We reached step 5 very quickly in this thread. She's not even trying to lead up to her nonsense gradually anymore. Must be too busy to organize the subterfuge.:rolleyes:
 
Are you claiming that social justice is not tied to modern liberalism?
I don't think that social justice is tied to social liberal - that is what you stated. You have now injected modern liberalism - shag do you equate social liberal to modern liberalism?

That is not what I said and you know it. Misrepresentation doesn't become you...
Unless you are utterly unaware of a certain activity, it is impossible to not make a judgment. Even if you simply accept and tolerate the activity, that is a moral judgment.
So, perhaps you should define 'activity'. What activities demand 'judgment' by all humans.

No one said it did. Misdirection doesn't help your argument...
This author adds the two subjects OSHA and society's treatment of gays and magically comes up with one sum - social liberalism.

Are you getting Modern Liberalism confused with Social Liberals?
 
I don't think.
Now I'm misrepresenting your words. See how it's done? There's no difference between what I just did and what you're doing to Shag.

You sound cranky today. Must have been a rough weekend. Your posts don't even have a point anymore, you're just arguing for the sake of it.
 
1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject

6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory

We reached step 5 very quickly in this thread. She's not even trying to lead up to her nonsense gradually anymore. Must be too busy to organize the subterfuge.:rolleyes:
Read the article Foss -
Social liberalism has led to an attitude of allowing government intervention to protect us from ourselves, from cars, from saturated fat, from incorrect sneezing, from almost any situation which can generate a bureaucracy. OHSA in the Department of Labor is now approaching $2 Billion for its budget. And of course, we must protect the children: much spending is done in the name of helping children.
Modern liberalism may have lead to those things - social liberals?

As 04 stated when 'most' people hear social liberal they aren't equating it to modern liberalism, they are using it to define 'you stay out of my personal business and I'll stay out of yours'.

I don't judge them by their lifestyle and am comfortable if/when I'm around them (socially liberal)

Perhaps a better term might be 'personal choice liberal'. Things are constantly being redefined all the time, it is difficult to keep up with the newest version. We have to add 'classic' 'modern' 'traditional' 'contemporary' 'victorian' to create a time frame so we know which definition is the correct one in the conversation at hand.

Now I'm misrepresenting your words. See how it's done? There's no difference between what I just did and what you're doing to Shag.

You sound cranky today. Must have been a rough weekend. Your posts don't even have a point anymore, you're just arguing for the sake of it.

Not in a bad mood at all - Northug won the 50m - all is well in the world!
 
You've shifted the focus from the article's point into a meaningless and boring straw man argument - a false juxtaposition between OSHA and gay rights. Keep deflecting, fox, until nobody cares anymore.

Foxpaws claims victory in 3...2...1...
 
I am just trying to figure out why the author is equating social liberals with OHSA - it is his article, not mine, his examples, not mine.

from the article-
Social liberalism has led to an attitude of allowing government intervention to protect us from ourselves, from cars, from saturated fat, from incorrect sneezing, from almost any situation which can generate a bureaucracy.

Most social liberals as '04 and basically the rest of society would define a social liberal would say 'who cares' to cars, saturated fat and sneezing - if your car doesn't harm me, if your obesity doesn't have an affect on me and if your incorrect sneezing doesn't infringe on me - I could care less. But, if your car spews pollutants and it harms me, your obesity causes my taxes and health care costs to skyrocket and your sneezing directly on me gives me H1N1, I might have something to say about that.

Modern liberalism has done those things - not the person who is defined as 'social liberal, fiscal conservative' by most of the population.
 
But, if your car spews pollutants and it harms me, your obesity causes my taxes and health care costs to skyrocket and your sneezing directly on me gives me H1N1, I might have something to say about that.
Has pollution from cars hurt you? How? Can you document this?

How is someone's obesity causing your taxes to skyrocket?
 
I don't think that social justice is tied to social liberal - that is what you stated. You have now injected modern liberalism - shag do you equate social liberal to modern liberalism?

Most any social philosophical outlook (especially those with political implications) is often broken down into social and fiscal issues; with a lot of overlap and interdependence between the two. The fact of the matter is that social liberalism is simply a part of modern liberalism and social and fiscal liberalism are interdependent.

What is your understanding of social justice?

As 04 stated when 'most' people hear social liberal they aren't equating it to modern liberalism.

Where did he state that?

In determining weather or not social liberalism is tied to modern liberalism, which is more relevant; what "most people" supposedly think or what the rationale is for social and/or modern liberalism and what ideas are draw from in the thought process as well as the history of the development of those ideas?
 
Well Shag - so what would you call a person that 04 described?
I don't want to give people handouts (fiscally conservative) but I don't judge them by their lifestyle and am comfortable if/when I'm around them (socially liberal)

Also when someone says they're fiscally conservative they could be refering to themselves and how they manage their money and not so much about how the government manages money and programs.

IMO I would say someone who calls themselves a social liberal is primarily refering to being comfortable theoretically and in reality with minorities, gays, and people living other alternative lifestyles.
That is how 'most' people describe a social liberal - whether or not that is the correct definition in the 'world political terms dictionary'.

You and this author are adding to the common perception of what a social liberal is. You are expanding it to include modern liberalism.

Just because you are a 'social liberal' (by common definition) doesn't mean you also believe in social justice. When you tie those terms together in a poli sci class that means one thing, when you are dealing with 'people' it means another, as you well know. Conservative in today's terms actually is more equated to the classic usage of the word 'liberal' and vice versa.

So, how I understand social justice... why does it matter? Social justice is only a part of social liberal as defined by this article (and poli sci classes), not how most people who are social liberals (such as '04) define themselves. '04 isn't demanding social justice based on his view (or his definition of social liberal) that 'you stay out of my personal business and I'll stay out of yours'.
 
04's passage does not make a distinction between social liberalism and modern liberalism. It does makes a distinction between social liberalism and fiscal liberalism; two parts of what constitutes modern liberalism. A breakdown of modern liberalism is not something entirely different then modern liberalism.

It is very common for people to breakdown an political viewpoint into fiscal and social aspects to distinguish between the parts of the viewpoints they disagree with and those they agree with. That does not, in the slightest way, suggest that social liberalism is separate from modern liberalism.

You haven't answered my questions...

FIRST:
What is your understanding of social justice? (This question is very relevant in determining and demonstrating weather or not you understand that idea how that idea does or does not interact with the liberal viewpoint)

SECOND:
which is more relevant in accurately understanding a social/political viewpoint;
what "most people" supposedly think about a certain social/political viewpoint
-or-
what the rationale is for a social/political viewpoint and the history of the development of those ideas
 
04's passage does not make a distinction between social liberalism and modern liberalism. It does makes a distinction between social liberalism and fiscal liberalism; two parts of what constitutes modern liberalism. A breakdown of modern liberalism is not something entirely different then modern liberalism.

It is very common for people to breakdown an political viewpoint into fiscal and social aspects to distinguish between the parts of the viewpoints they disagree with and those they agree with. That does not, in the slightest way, suggest that social liberalism is separate from modern liberalism.

You haven't answered my questions...

FIRST:
What is your understanding of social justice? (This question is very relevant in determining and demonstrating weather or not you understand that idea how that idea does or does not interact with the liberal viewpoint)

SECOND:
which is more relevant in accurately understanding a social/political viewpoint;
what "most people" supposedly think about a certain social/political viewpoint
-or-
what the rationale is for a social/political viewpoint and the history of the development of those ideas

So, second one first here...
If I were in school, or discussing this on a site that had a lot of people who were going to read it as though it were a scholarly essay – I would say your second choice.

Since we are on a car website – I would go with public perception, your first choice. I would go with public perception probably 90 percent of the time shag – until I knew the audience better.

‘04s viewpoint is important here, because his viewpoint probably encompasses 90% of how people perceive the concept ‘social liberal’.

When ‘most’ people who define themselves as a social liberal see the headline -“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.” The Epitaph for America’s Future? they very well could be thinking – Me, this describes me?

It doesn’t describe them within their concept of the term, ’04 certainly doesn’t think it describes him – he doesn’t see that his viewpoint on how gays should be treated should delineate how OSHA works. The article uses the term social liberal within a very scholarly usage of the term, tying it to social justice and creating ‘modern liberal’.

Nothing wrong with that when you are talking among scholars, who all agree on term usage – but in 90% of the cases you aren’t. Since that is the case here – you go with the 90/10 rule –

Does social liberal always equate to fiscal liberal – that is what is ‘assumed’ in this article. However, in the ‘common usage’ definition it doesn’t need to. The author created a headline to draw in people who define themselves as social liberals, and then shifted the conversation to modern liberalism. Most people who see themselves as social liberals (following '04s definition) wouldn’t see themselves as modern liberals.

As I said before, perhaps a new term regarding ‘social liberal’ in the way ’04 defines it needs to be added to the political landscape- or remove it from the way scholars define modern liberal.

How do you think the founding fathers would have defined ’04s stand on those social policies that he drew out?

As for the first question, within the discussion of this article - I don't think social justice has much to do with '04s personal definition of social liberal. I think he sees them as two different things that don't need to work hand in hand. Modern liberalism places the two in the same boat - but I don't think that 'has' to be the case.

Do you shag - do you see that how '04 defines social liberal doesn't need to adhere to the scholarly definition of 'social liberalism'. That it can work - to separate the social from the fiscal?

Or maybe you think that the two always have to travel together.

Does it work for conservatives? Do you have to be a 'social conservative' if you are a 'fiscal conservative' (when dealing with government and its monetary policies). How do you define 'social conservative' anyway?
 
Nothing wrong with that when you are talking among scholars, who all agree on term usage – but in 90% of the cases you aren’t. Since that is the case here – you go with the 90/10 rule –
90/10 rule? What the hell are you talking about? And of course, you have PROOF of that...:rolleyes:
 
So, second one first here...
If I were in school, or discussing this on a site that had a lot of people who were going to read it as though it were a scholarly essay – I would say your second choice.

Since we are on a car website – I would go with public perception, your first choice. I would go with public perception probably 90 percent of the time shag – until I knew the audience better.

...so, understanding a social/political viewpoint like liberalism is dependent on the audience? Put differently; your understanding of an idea is determined by majority rule?

‘04s viewpoint is important here

It is relevant to the discussion that you and I are having, but look at this thread. For the sake of argument, let's say that he is misinterpreting the article because of a misconception of liberalism and/or conservatism. Does he not need to correct that misconception, or does his personal conception determine reality?

Does social liberal always equate to fiscal liberal

No one is saying that.

As I said before, perhaps a new term regarding ‘social liberal’ in the way ’04 defines it needs to be added to the political landscape- or remove it from the way scholars define modern liberal.

So your distinction here between social liberalism and modern liberalism is completely arbitrary and fictional? Nothing more then a postulation on your part?

As for the first question, within the discussion of this article - I don't think social justice has much to do with '04s personal definition of social liberal.

Is his "personal definition" not rooted in his understanding of what liberalism and conservatism are, as reflected in the news, his various readings,etc?

I don't think social justice has much to do with '04s personal definition of social liberal

I didn't say a thing about his "personal definition".

In post #16 you said, "I don't think that social justice is tied to social liberal".

If you don't understand that idea or the history of the idea and it's various iterations and applications, then you are hardly in a position to have an authoritative view on this. It would greatly help your claim if you could prove this instead of simply asserting it.

I think he sees them as two different things that don't need to work hand in hand. Modern liberalism places the two in the same boat - but I don't think that 'has' to be the case.

Liberals support smoking bans; something Libertarians do not support.

Liberals support redistributive income and progressive taxation; something Libertarians do not support.

Liberals support universal health care; something Libertarians do not support.

Liberals support cap-and-trade; something Libertarians do not support.

I could go on...

While many of these issue have a fiscal aspect to them, that is simply the means to an end. There is no reason for these programs except to create social change. So, how do you explain that?

What distinguishes "social" liberalism from libertarianism?
 
...so, understanding a social/political viewpoint like liberalism is dependent on the audience? Put differently; your understanding of an idea is determined by majority rule?
No - understanding of the idea remains the same - what name you give it is where the 'fuzz' factor comes in. Here, the author uses 'social liberalism' in one way (a popular way) in the headline, but reverts to using it in a scholarly way within the article. He needs to remain consistent - or define his term better - so the article becomes a 'teaching' point so people can understand the difference between the scholarly use of the term and the popular use of the term.

It is relevant to the discussion that you and I are having, but look at this thread. For the sake of argument, let's say that he is misinterpreting the article because of a misconception of liberalism and/or conservatism. Does he not need to correct that misconception, or does his personal conception determine reality?
I think if presented properly '04 would see the difference between the scholarly approach to the term social liberal and the popular definition. Obviously this article doesn't do that. It is depending on keeping that difference 'fuzzy' to create sensationalism.

No one is saying that.

This is what you said before - I thought it indicated that when you break it down into its 2 parts it really isn't really that different -
It does makes a distinction between social liberalism and fiscal liberalism; two parts of what constitutes modern liberalism. A breakdown of modern liberalism is not something entirely different then modern liberalism.

So your distinction here between social liberalism and modern liberalism is completely arbitrary and fictional? Nothing more then a postulation on your part?

It isn't arbitrary - it is how 90% of the people see them as being different - that a social liberal doesn't need to embrace social fiscal policy. However in the scholarly world social liberalism does include social fiscal policy. That is why a new term would be helpful...

Is his "personal definition" not rooted in his understanding of what liberalism and conservatism are, as reflected in the news, his various readings,etc?

Yep - and it appears social liberalism doesn't include social fiscal policy in his viewpoint.
I didn't say a thing about his "personal definition".

In post #16 you said, "I don't think that social justice is tied to social liberal".

I don't see that quote there - are you saying I implied it somehow in the car/obesity/sneezing stuff?

If you don't understand that idea or the history of the idea and it's various iterations and applications, then you are hardly in a position to have an authoritative view on this. It would greatly help your claim if you could prove this instead of simply asserting it.

What am I proving? That '04 doesn't equate his definition of social liberal with the scholarly definition? You will need to have him weigh in on this. But by his posts it certainly looks to be the case.

what distinguishes social liberalism from libertarianism?
Looking for more a US point of view or European Shag? pro property or anti property? anarchy? Once again - this article is hinging on how terms are defined by different groups - I am not sure how you define libertarianism. Once you get that for me I will be able to compare it to a scholarly or populace definition of social liberal-you can chose.
 
What I was getting at is that when a person defines themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal they're usually not refering to politics.
In politics the two are contradictory positions.
But in regular life, conservative and liberal have their base meanings without the politics.
A conservative measure, a liberal dose, for instance, one meaning holding back and the other diving in.
The words are adjectives instead of a nouns more describing an action than a belief.

So this article is more for scholars than for the people who actually describe themselves non politically as fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
It's like the author miss conceptualized the term.
 

Members online

Back
Top