Posted on 11/24/2007 2:44:15 PM PST by DogByte6RER
24% Are Both Fiscal and Socially Conservative, 9% Fiscally and Socially Liberal
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Forty-one percent (41%) of American voters say they are conservative when it comes to “fiscal issues such as taxes, government spending, and business regulation.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 43% consider themselves fiscally moderate and 12% say liberal.
At the same time, 37% say they are conservative when it comes to “social issues like abortion, public prayer, and church-state topics.” On such social issues, 30% say they are moderate while 30% say liberal.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republicans consider themselves fiscal conservatives. Fifty percent (50%) of Democrats and 49% of those not affiliated with either major party consider themselves fiscal moderates.
On social issues, 61% of Republicans say they are conservative. Forty-three percent (43%) of Democrats say they are liberal . Those not affiliated with either major party find themselves evenly divided—30% social conservatives, 35% social moderates, and 33% social liberals.
Combining the two categories yields an interesting portrait of the electorate. The largest segment of the population—24%--consider themselves to be both fiscally and socially conservative. Seventeen percent (17%) say they are both fiscally and socially moderate.
Fourteen percent (14%) are fiscally moderate and socially liberal. Eleven percent (11%) are fiscally moderate and socially conservative. Ten percent (10%) are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Nine percent (9%) are both fiscally and socially liberal. Six percent (6%) are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Among Republicans, 47% are both fiscally and socially conservative.
Democrats have no such dominant base. Twenty percent (20%) are fiscally moderate but liberal on the social issues. Nineteen percent (19%) of Democrats consider themselves moderate on both fiscal and social issues. Sixteen percent (16%) of Nancy Pelosi’s party say they are liberal on both fiscal and social issues.
Not possible.
But only 5% vote that way.
Why is that...?
This means nothing. Most people don’t even know the definitions of the terms asked. If asked if they are ficsally conservative, some will say yes b/c they know how to find a good bargain in stores not because they believe in lower taxes.
I’m conservative because I hate everything liberal. /s
Yeah, that sounds way high, unless the definition of fiscal conservative has shifted to “I oppose pork except in my district.” At the local level, I’ll bet the number is dismal.
But over half the population get a blue check from their rich uncle every month so there is no turning back now without revolution.They will always vote for the government check or whoever promises it.
So only a minority of Americans do not want a tax increase?
Wow! Are we that far gone?
"I think it would be fair to conclude that the 9% who are fiscally and socially liberal are broke and on welfare and have a venereal disease."
Ha! ya ... I agree! Those who depend on other peoples money to pay the bills, and for the penicillin shots would tend to be more liberal.
Six percent (6%) are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
I like to call these the deluded ones. Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are incompatible, because social liberalism (if practiced by the masses) ultimately leads to increased in government. Don’t agree? Just ask the millions of single moms who vote Democrat in lockstep. You know, the ones who think everyone else should be paying to raise their kids.
Before I’m flamed, I greatly admire single moms who vote conservative. It’s not easy to ignore Democrat promises to “take care of you” when you are struggling to raise a family on your own.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Excellent point.
Delacon wrote: “Whether you think they are deluded or not is another issue entirely.”
Good point.
Indeed. You state that “Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are incompatible”. As I posted, I think generally libertarians see themselves as fiscally conservatives and social liberals. I think there has been and will continue to be a lot of really good debates on whether or not these two positions are imcompatible. Does social liberalism have costs that will inevitably be born by society as a whole? Does it exceed the costs of a socially conservative position? My opinion is that social conservatives tend to be more self policing than social liberals and thus incur less costs that get passed onto the government and society as a whole.
They want low taxes and legal abortion.
I know a retired politician who is exactly that way. I wouldn't say he is my friend because no social lib is going to be a friend of mine.
Excellent points.
Advocating for liberal social policies also grow the leviathan beast that is government.
You cannot be truly free if you support only a little bit of slavery for yourself. It’s like a deluded woman who claims that she is only a little bit pregnant.
I agree with you.
Libertarian = Armed liberal that doesn’t want to pay taxes.
Delacon wrote: “My opinion is that social conservatives tend to be more self policing than social liberals and thus incur less costs that get passed onto the government and society as a whole.”
I agree. A minority of libertines can be tolerated in a fiscally conservative society. As general policy, social liberalism results in chaos that citizens will ultimately look to government to resolve. For example, the wealthy can afford to be socially liberal, i.e. immoral, because they have the funding to ameliorate the results. When immorality is practiced on a wide scale, it’s a completely different situation. The poor, frankly, cannot afford to pay for their mistakes. That creates a fertile field the Democrats use to expand their base.
Only if we choose so. For whatever reason we have trouble saying no to people who bring harm on themselves by poor life choices. The solution isn't to prevent people from making poor life choices but rather to stop subsidizing those choices.
garbanzo wrote: “The solution isn’t to prevent people from making poor life choices but rather to stop subsidizing those choices.”
That’s a wonderful concept but it doesn’t work in a democracy. It’s as inevitable as the tides. An immoral citizenry will ultimately elect politicians who promise government largess. Two possible solutions: a return to individual morality on a wider scale, or strict constitutional limits on what the government can do. Unfortunately, as we have seen, the latter doesn’t work so well.
Ah but the flip side of the coin is the fiscal liberal who is also a social conservative which are two positions dangerously not incompatible. This is someone who sees no problem in using the government(and our tax dollars) to solve the world’s ills just so long as it is along social/relgious conservative lines. IE Huckabee and Bush.
Delacon wrote: “Ah but the flip side of the coin is the fiscal liberal who is also a social conservative which are two positions dangerously not incompatible. This is someone who sees no problem in using the government(and our tax dollars) to solve the world’s ills just so long as it is along social/relgious conservative lines. IE Huckabee and Bush.”
Based on the article, fiscal liberals who are socially conservative are a bigger portion of the electorate (11% vs. 6%). They might even be more dangerous than the fiscally conservative, social liberal types. Personally, I think they are pretty naive if they think they can play with the leviathan, aka big government, without getting burnt in the long run.
Fifty percent (50%) of Democrats and 49% of those not affiliated with either major party consider themselves fiscal moderates.
So 50% of Democrats are fiscally liberal and are looking for government handouts. Fiscally moderate what is that? That you just think the government should do SOME things like education, some welfare and health-care? In other words democrats/liberals are socialists and beggars.
Does socially “liberal” mean the individual is largely unregulated unless he substantially steps on the rights of others? Or does it mean regulated at every step by a Nanny state with laws that guide “right behavior” and thinking is step with the “community?”
Does socially “conservative” mean maximizing the rights of the individual and protecting the individual from the “tyranny of the majority” in harmony with the beliefs of the Founding Fathers? Or does it mean legislating morality and having Christian family values?
marsh2 asks: “Does socially “liberal” mean the individual is largely unregulated unless he substantially steps on the rights of others? Or does it mean regulated at every step by a Nanny state with laws that guide “right behavior” and thinking is step with the “community?””
In my opinion, a social liberal is someone who encourages or takes a neutral view on the spread of immorality in the populace. They generally say everything is OK so long as it’s between consenting adults, and they generally oppose government restrictions of same. Unfortunately, they ignore the fact that what goes on in private can and often does negatively impact society.
“Does socially “conservative” mean maximizing the rights of the individual and protecting the individual from the “tyranny of the majority” in harmony with the beliefs of the Founding Fathers? Or does it mean legislating morality and having Christian family values?”
In my opinion, a social conservative is someone who believes in both private and public morality. They generally favor laws that encourage responsible behavior and/or punish immorality, depending on how much they support individual liberty. Essentially, if something is harming society, they would tend to regulate it or even make it illegal.
“Only if we choose so. For whatever reason we have trouble saying no to people who bring harm on themselves by poor life choices. The solution isn’t to prevent people from making poor life choices but rather to stop subsidizing those choices.”
I agree. The solution is to allow social liberalism but to stop subsidizing it. That in turn will force people to try to increase their chances of avoiding bad choices in the first place. How will people do this? By relying on the tried and true, on social conventions that have worked throughout time. In short, people will become more socially conservative. Don’t give them a net and they will tend not to need one. Thats how I think we should arrive at a socially conservative society.
Consistent conservative = largest single block BUT ... not enough to win an election without appealing to some in the nearby categories (e.g., social moderate + fiscal conservative, and social conservative + fiscal moderate).
We start out with a pretty good advantage. As long as we don’t overplay our hand, we should win.
“We start out with a pretty good advantage. As long as we don’t overplay our hand, we should win.”
No. Phylisophicly we should win, but we have to overide the traditional inclination to vote a two term executive out of office. That coupled with a decade long complete control of both the legislative and executive branches with nothing much to speak for it, and we have an uphill battle. People still want change(for good reason) regardless of the fact that they don’t have a single idea about what change will bring.
To vote the party of a two term executive out of office is what I meant.
the first step is to get govt completely out of education. No more public school, student loans or govt grants
Ah - then you and I have a different definition of social conservativism......
With regard to “change,” at least we don’t have the disadvantage of a VP who is not a candidate to succeed the President.
With regard to the a program for change, the Republican domestic agenda disappeared with 9-11 ... privatization of Social Security, school vouchers, fundamental reform of the tax code, market-oriented reform of health insurance and comprehensive reform of immigration. All these were back-burner’ed by the Democrats winning the Senate in 2000 and the departure of Dick Armey from the Republican leadership, and then postponed “for the duration” by the focus on the war on terror.
As far as most Americans think, the Republican Congressional agenda was exclusively driven by social conservatives, with the Terry Schiavo case communicating to the country that the Congress was willing to interfere in the courts and in the states to advance the social conservative agenda. This plus the pork barrel marked Tom DeLay’s tenure as Majority Leader. Fortunately, now that we have an even worse Congress with the Democrats in charge, the memory of how awful the House was under DeLay is fast fading away.
People usually don’t vote “for” a candidate because he wants to balance the budget, bring entitlements under control, protect the country from attack, enact an immigration policy that is effective in policing our borders and conducive to economic growth, and so forth. Such policies are like housekeeping or compromises.
So, how, in 2008, can a Republican candidate crystalize a vision of a free, decent and prosperous America, as Reagan did with “a shining city on a hill.”
Thus far here is all I’ve been able to put together:
Rudy Giuliani is a good leader, especially in a crisis, and can be effective is getting the things done that need to be done to turn a country around, the way he did with New York City.
Mitt Romney is a solid corporate-type executive, with a beautiful family; he was an effective Governor (but how specifically I don’t know, since he has distanced himself from much of what he stood for as a Governor) (and he wasn’t succeeded by a Republican) and as an organizer of an Olympics, and will be an effective President.
Mike Huckabee is a caring person who truly believes that every human being is precious, and that we should commit ourselves to making government work for the sake of the people of the country and of the world. I don’t have any idea what he accomplished as Governor (and he wasn’t succeeded by a Republican either).
John McCain is a courageous person who has dedicated his entire life to this country. He will not be beholden to the polls or to the special interest groups.
I do see admirable qualities in these candidates, but I haven’t heard an agenda for change.
I also like your point about the apparent contradiction between “fiscal conservative” and “social liberal.”
Libertarians believe that people should be free, meaning free to choice and enjoy or suffer the consequences of one’s choices. Libetarians explicitly oppose the welfare state. This is a reason they can support immigration. They don’t believe every American resident should have a guarantee of someting like $30,000 per year in free cash and non-cash benefits thanks to the taxpayer-slave of the government.
Social liberals on the other hand think that freedom means to be free of the consequences of one’s actions. Hence, promiscuous gays should expect the taxpayer-slaves to pay the cost of the drugs they need. Children, in their view, should be able to depend on their parent-slaves for financial support, but not accountable to them when they want an abortion.
Liberals, by turning all human relationships into politicalized relationships resting on the force of the government, degrade citizenship, friendship, business associationships, family and charity. Conservatives at least appreciate how important are the social institutions of a free society (although, I must admit that many libertarians fool themselves into thinking individuals can be free without such social institutions).
Plus, liberals don’t really stand for personal freedom or for equal rights. There’s the matter of the right to keep and bear arms. Liberals don’t believe in it. There’s freedom of religion, as opposed to what liberals believe, which is freedom from religion. And, there’s freedom of speech, which liberals oppose, believing in freedom only of politically-correct speech.
Liberals don’t believe in equal rights, but in quotas, preferences, set-asides and legal presumptions for certain people based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and so forth. And, liberals want freedom of marijuana while wanting government control of cirgarettes and of trans fats.
You can see why I don’t believe “social liberals” equals social libertarian, and why I don’t see myself fitting in any of Rasmussen’s categories.
Bang on! You are right. And what does socially liberal really mean? If you ask people, most probably think it means, equality among people, non-discriminating about race, etc. They are not thinking about, "gay" marriage, open borders, special treatment for special groups above everyone else.
Sure it's possible and it makes perfect sense. Liberals create permanent under classes with other peoples' money.
Social issues go far beyond church/religion-related topics. 2nd Amendment issues, for one. And many conservatives are simply social traditionalists -- whether they're religious or not.
>>Forty-one percent (41%) of American voters say they are conservative when it comes to “fiscal issues such as taxes, government spending, and business regulation.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 43% consider themselves fiscally moderate and 12% say liberal.<<
I suspect that way moire than 12% are fiscally liberal by mine (and Freep’s) definition.
My brother is that way. He absolutely hates government give outs, wants to keep his own money (taxes), and would love a flat tax, or fair tax type system.
Yet he is very socially liberal (maybe libertarian would be a better term). He believes in live and let live. Drugs, sex and Rock and Roll type guy. He lives Minneapolis, while I live in rural mid Wisconsin, so maybe that explains it.
Your statement needs to be repeated over and over. The public schools have long been a tool for liberal zealots to undermine parental authority and morality. All in the name of education.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.