I've never considered there to be 2 types. A conservative is fiscally and socially conservative, if not they are not conservative.
I agree. The "other" 'conservative' would probably (really) be a Libertarian.
Well, libertarians tend to be fiscally conservative. And one could advance a lot of respectable precedents for "none of my business" attitude in matters social. One would think that the Prohibition lesson has sunk.
Politicians who claim to be "fiscal conservatives" are most likely neither, definitely will vote to spend more on social programs, against tax cuts as it will "expand the deficit" (when it is Congressional spending that explodes the deficit, not tax cuts) and they are never, ever conservative on Judicial power grabs, parental choice, school choice, filth on network TV, etc.
Well, I think there are a lot of people that are fiscally conservative, but not socially conservative.
Lots of liberals live very conservatives lives and raise their kids and spend their money conservatively. But they have some overwhelming guilt about their own success in life which requires them to believe that nobody else can achieve what they achieve because everybody else in inferior and requires government assistance (with somebody elses money, of course).
"I've never considered there to be 2 types. A conservative is fiscally and socially conservative, if not they are not conservative."
that was Reagan's view. We should follow his lead.
Unless one favors 1.cultural and 2.fiscal/economic and 3.foreign policy Conservatism, one has to hyphenate the term a bit: "neo-", "libertarian-"...
Within philosophical Conservatism historically there have been two main currents of thought since Burke : Whig and Tory. 'Whig' is what we used to call 'Manchester Liberalism' emphasizing 'free trade' and the benefits of semi-laissezfair markets, etc. 'Tories' emphasized 'social fabric', mutual social allegiance, and the organic nature of the 'good society', not to be violated capriciously by radical schemes of whatever ideology, economic or otherwise. So, that's the main 'modern'(post-1780)currents of thought.
Contemporary American Conservatism (aprox. post WWII) is philosophically composed of three main currents of thought, any of which might be the 'guiding' current on a given issue at a given time. They are, roughly,: Conservatism ("Tory" or "Paleo-"), Neo-Conservatism , and Libertarianism. 'Conservatives'are pro-tradition and family on cultural issues + pro-Constitution/limited government, and unilateralist but reserved on foreign intervention -- prepared to defend an official ally against attack, sometimes willing to defend any innocent party if prudent. 'Neo-Conservatives' are often reformed leftists who were honest enough to examine the empirical data on leftist domestic program results and repent mostly. They're often still interventionist on foreign policy - 'wilsonian' (often citing a high purpose)and they're often less concerned than others in the conservative realm by deficit spending for the high purposes they cite; Culturally 'Neo-Cons'are fairly Conservative through empirical experience. 'Libertarians' start with the ethical question of 'by what right?' regarding any coercion, governmental or otherwise, and so, tend to favor very limited government by which they hope to derive an active and healthy society of consentual association, help, and virtue. Basically, Government limited to essential public functions, not 'crowding-out' the other key (non-coersive) institutions of society. Very limited on foriegn intervention. And Culturally then, tending to favor 'to each his own', without much influence of the 'normative value' of law.
Personally, I'm of the traditional Conservative ("tory","paleo-") camp, and we do pride ourselves on being able to give a fair description of all relevant currents of thought. So, does this seem a fair description?
Unless one favors 1.cultural and 2.fiscal/economic and 3.foreign policy Conservatism, one has to hyphenate the term a bit: "neo-", "libertarian-"...
Within philosophical Conservatism historically there have been two main currents of thought since Burke : Whig and Tory. 'Whig' is what we used to call 'Manchester Liberalism' emphasizing 'free trade' and the benefits of semi-laissezfair markets, etc. 'Tories' emphasized 'social fabric', mutual social allegiance, and the organic nature of the 'good society', not to be violated capriciously by radical schemes of whatever ideology, economic or otherwise. So, that's the main 'modern'(post-1780)currents of thought.
Contemporary American Conservatism (aprox. post WWII) is philosophically composed of three main currents of thought, any of which might be the 'guiding' current on a given issue at a given time. They are, roughly,: Conservatism ("Tory" or "Paleo-"), Neo-Conservatism , and Libertarianism. 'Conservatives'are pro-tradition and family on cultural issues + pro-Constitution/limited government, and unilateralist but reserved on foreign intervention -- prepared to defend an official ally against attack, sometimes willing to defend any innocent party if prudent; traditional Conservatives also tend to favor 'fair trade' over 'free-trade', being cheerfully willing to combat 'predatory trade' nations with measures like a tariff/import tax, which is the traditional trade policy of the GOP from 1856 until aprox 1978.
'Neo-Conservatives' are often reformed leftists who were honest enough to examine the empirical data on leftist domestic program results and repent mostly. They're often still interventionist on foreign policy - 'wilsonian' (often citing a high purpose)and they're often less concerned than others in the conservative realm by deficit spending for the high purposes they cite; Culturally 'Neo-Cons'are fairly Conservative through empirical experience; and Neo-Conservatives tend to favor "free trade" policies like FTAA and NAFTA that traditional Conservatives generally oppose.
'Libertarians' start with the ethical question of 'by what right?' regarding any coercion, governmental or otherwise, and so, tend to favor very limited government by which they hope to derive an active and healthy society of consentual association, help, and virtue. Basically, Government limited to essential public functions, not 'crowding-out' the other key (non-coersive) institutions of society. Very limited on foriegn intervention. 'Free trade' on trade policy. And Culturally then, tending to favor 'to each his own', without much influence of the 'normative value' of law.
Personally, I'm of the traditional Conservative ("tory","paleo-") camp, and we do pride ourselves on being able to give a fair description of all relevant currents of thought. So, does this seem a fair description?