I think the term “socially liberal” hinges on two issues - abortion and gay marriage.
As I consider myself to be libertarian, which makes me conservative, I don’t understand how a libertarian can be other than for the rights of the unborn. As for gay marriage - what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is not the business of the government. But changing the definition of marriage beyond one man and one woman opens doors I would rather not see opened - like that fast food commercial.
Show me someonw who claims to be socially liberal, but fiscally conservative and I will show you someone who will wimp on fiscal matters too, because they have no faith in individual responsibility - (Chris Christie, for one), and are terrified of being branded as extremists.
I agree with you that every STATE should outlaw abortion and no STATE should redefine the parameters of marriage.
Beyond that, I am PERSONALLY socially conservative but I see no role for government at any level imposing my values on anyone else. I’ve never seen a label that covers me.
As I consider myself to be libertarian, which makes me conservative, I don’t understand how a libertarian can be other than for the rights of the unborn. As for gay marriage - what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is not the business of the government. But changing the definition of marriage beyond one man and one woman opens doors I would rather not see opened - like that fast food commercial.
Show me someonw who claims to be socially liberal, but fiscally conservative and I will show you someone who will wimp on fiscal matters too, because they have no faith in individual responsibility - (Chris Christie, for one), and are terrified of being branded as extremists.
I agree with you 100%, but my thoughts take me one step further. Any government with the power to legislate these social issues also has the power to swing in the opposite direction (which is what we are seeing now). My opposition to the federal government's involvement in social issues IS NOT equivalent to condoning abhorrent behaviors, quite the opposite, it is my recognition that there are two sides to every door. These issues are best left to the states and local governments, where representation is closer to the people and we all have a choice: if we don't care for liberal NY, we pick up and move to TX where there exists a contrasting representation of the population.
The federal government has no business in these issues, and to think so makes one accepting of nanny state tendencies. It is a dangerous precedent that has already been set and needs to be rolled back. If we tell liberals what is acceptable, we have no room to b!tch when they turn around and shove their ideals down our throats. The federal gov't should be OUT of these issues or we've degraded to nothing more than mob rule.
As I consider myself to be libertarian, which makes me conservative...
Don't forget dangerous drugs. Social liberals want drugs legalized. And do not fool yourself; libertarians are not conservatives. They are liberals. Social liberals.
And libertarians therefore can never ever acheive fiscal responsibility.
Those two issues, plus a host of various “ism” perceptions that are actively pomoted and propagated without effective response.
The fact is that a Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservative who votes social issues is a flippin’ idiot. I’d probably lean towards the Socially Liberal (Libertarian) position on a number of issues, but I’m smart enough to realize that the BIG issues in the room are the debt and taxation/spending policy.
I’ll ALWAYS vote - in a general election - for the major party candidate that’s closest to me on those (plus Second Amendment Rights) regardless of Social Issues. Which means that I’m always going to vote for the Republican over the Dem.