Fiscally Conservative and Fiscally Liberal are the same thing. Liberalism and Conservatism are the exact same thing - they focus on running the economy like a household, i.E. A balanced budget. The term you are looking for to describe Keynesian Economics is not liberalism but socialism. Socialism has become something of a profanity in America, so they call it liberalism instead, to disguise the poisonous word made so by the Red Scare, a movement instigated by fundamentalist Christians who were opposed to the secularisation brought by left of centre politics. One can be socially libertarian, as I am, liberal, conservative or reactionary. Social libertarianism is the belief that someone should be allowed to do whatever they please so long it is not at the expense of others. Social liberalism is a slightly less radical form of this, such as the UK at present, where drugs and euthanasia are still illegal, but same sex marriage and abortion are not. Social conservatism is the present USA, where religion has a profound influence on state, as evidenced by a lack of universal healthcare, certain workers' rights and other infringements on peoples' personal freedom. Social reactionarism favours a return to a previous era in terms of social attitudes, such as banning homosexuality or abortion, and is advocated by Fox News and all the other archconservative wretches that the world would be better off without. Posted by: henryajevans Report Post

No, it is possible - look to libertarians Being fiscally conservative means not making the government responsible for distributing welfare. The government is extremely inefficient at this. For the example of welfare reduction, government bureaucrats are allocated funding based on the levels of poverty and other markers of economic disparity. They are not encouraged to decrease levels, because lower poverty means less funding for their department. Government does not reward success, it throws money at problems, with the only safeguards being the informed and rarely non-apathetic electorate.



However believing that extensive and rampant government funding is counter-productive to our goals does not in itself prohibit one from being socially liberal. Gay marriage and marijuana legalization cost nothing, and are cornerstones of the social liberalism.



Liberalism was originally more aligned with todays libertarian values, which are of personal freedom and personal, not government, dependence. Only after socialism and communism did some liberals believe that big government was essential to personal success and fulfilment. Therefore libertarians, and many like minded groups, are the proof that one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Report Post

This Describes Libertarians A Libertarian is dedicated to the idea of limited government. For instance, when it comes to government spending, a Libertarian is said to be "fiscally conservative" because they believe wasteful and unnecessary expenditures should be eliminated from the budget. Conversely, a Libertarian is "socially Liberal" because they do not believe the government has the right or the authority to infringe on anyone's civil rights. Thus, a Libertarian is pro gay marriage, pro choice, etc. Report Post

Liberty and Control The political stance parameters prescribed by our current government intentionally use media and vernacular to mislead public opinion into camps of common thought. They create an environment of exclusion which frowns upon alternative solutions and policies which don't necessarily meld with the political party's "mission".



The concept of individual liberty clearly makes political party obsolete, as an individual is free to have their own stance on any issue at any given time. Individuals are additionally able to change said stance when presented with new evidence.



Social decisions and financial decisions are logically very different considerations. Wanting a less authoritarian influence on expression, lifestyles, and privacy does not mean that having a concern for how public funds are spent, makes one's political views irrelevant. As stated in a previous post, the ultimate goal is freedom in markets freedom and social decisions.



Individual liberty is the most important development is sociopolitical order. Thus being socially liberal but fiscally conservative is an entirely sound and logical political base. Posted by: Dooblarius Report Post

You can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and this logically tenable. You can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and this logically tenable because they are completely different issues.



I would think that the broken marriage of fiscal conservationism and the radical notion that the government should be involved in private personal choices is the problem. How can you be rational conservative in fiscal matters but differ to ancient religious arguments when it comes to social issues? It is insane. Report Post

NO... I can be both. I don't really care what people believe or do,... As long as it doesn't invade my or any others personal space. As far as spending tax dollars wisely, I'm ALL for that... On programs that help as many citizens as possible and not just a few people at the top...Who bribe to get their way. Report Post

No, being socially liberal and fiscally conservative is actually logically coherent. Fiscal conservatism is rooted in the idea of freedom to make economic actions. Social Liberalism is rooted in the idea of freedom to make social actions. So, being fiscally conservative and socially liberal is the same as saying you believe in freedom across the board. It is a libertarian approach, and it makes perfect sense. Report Post

Social liberalism means - Less of authoritarianism Fiscal conservatism means - Don't try to spend what you don't have - Liberalism does not mean free "ride for all". Rather it means removing authoritarian barriers, which means a number of things like removing unnecessary oversight and over-legislation, removing the so-called moral or religious driven restrictions etc.



- Fiscal Conservatism does not mean ruthless cost cutting, rather it means removing the need for unnecessary spending like building roads to nowhere, creating a missile program that is waiting for the alien invasion to be able to justify its economic benefits etc. And also planning to spend only what you think you can afford. Posted by: myopnismine Report Post

Not logically untenable, but flawed for another reason. There are lots of socially liberal opinions that are just about removing various regulations or archaic social conventions. A consistent libertarian would hold these opinions and at the same time have the fiscally conservative opinion that the state should stop everything it does except police and military.



The flaw here is not logical but has to to with the cultural conequences of policies. Reducing the commitment of the state to individual welfare necessarily means more power to inherently conservative institutions such as family and religion. This leads to an increase of authoritarian collectivist values in society, that are incompatible with social liberalism. But this is not the flaw adressed in the question, so I say No. Posted by: nordmarj Report Post