The Oxymoron of Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal Ideology
October 14, 2020
Remember when you first learned of oxymorons in grade school, and you sat in class for the rest of the day thinking of new ones? They’re kind of funny, the irony that exists in a few simple words. Jumbo shrimp. Bittersweet. Deafening silence. Clearly misunderstood. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
Identifying as socially liberal and fiscally conservative tells the world “I care about people but not enough to see them cared for on a systemic level.” The key thing that socially liberal, fiscally conservative supporters fail to see is that, in this capitalist global economy, money is the materialization of care. Empathy can only go so far when there are lives at stake, and empathy needs the funding to turn into comprehensive action.
Imagine the American political spectrum as a line, one end labeled “left” and the other labeled “right.” There’s a small rectangle drawn in the middle of the line called “The Overton Window,” marking the moderate viewpoint. This box shifts on the line, and anything within that box, no matter its placement on the line, represents normalized ideas. Anything outside the Overton Window is considered radical. American politics is right leaning, with the Overton Window skewing slightly to the right. For example, the U.S. still does not mandate paid leave for new parents. And universal healthcare, although gaining traction by progressives, continues to be seen as radical. Expanding the social programs of the United States, from the perspective of the right-leaning Overton Window, is seen as expensive, unnecessary, and an infringement on individuality. Those that tout conservative fiscal policy want less government, constantly seeing it in opposition of individual freedom. What’s more American than that phrase: individual freedom? I’d argue one better: systemic change. No matter how well a fiscal conservative convinces themself that they’re socially progressive, it isn’t enough for the wellbeing of all beings if that blockade of American individualism keeps standing in the forefront of American political ideology.
I’ve brought up hypotheticals, oxymorons, and have explained the Overton Window, but nothing helps understanding like an example. So here’s a real issue: The West Coast is on fire. Louisiana’s industrial wasteland nightmare “Cancer Alley” continues to kill the people living there. Florida is experiencing coastal flooding that’s only expected to get worse in the next 30 years.
Climate change isn’t imminent—it’s happening now. With the current rate of global greenhouse gas emissions, the average world temperature will increase by four to eight degrees Fahrenheit in this century alone. The global climate is warming from burning fossil fuels, taking non-renewable resources for free from the Earth. But in life, nothing’s free. The price humanity is paying for extracting and exploiting the Earth for centuries is climate catastrophe. The only way to mitigate climate change predicates on two things: spending money and cooperation. Fiscal conservatism contradicts both. In conservative ideology, money is for the individual, used only for one’s personal gain, while cooperating with any institution larger than oneself—government, usually—devalues the freedom one has to do anything they please. Fiscal conservatism is an ideology for the privileged, the people who remain unaffected by the current disasters of climate change because of their wealth. Fiscal conservatisms assume everyone has access to freedom, but that’s simply not true for people with no financial means to support them.
Get This Week's News
All the big stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday morning
Fiscal conservatives who are detached from lower-income communities, the people suffering the most from climate change, don’t want to extend the money that would alleviate their burdens. Individual freedom is taken away by a single wildfire, a single hurricane, a single industrial plant, and collective financial aid is the only thing that will reduce the harm, not financial independence. One cannot call themselves socially liberal if they refuse to provide the means to make those socially liberal beliefs a reality.
Because of the Overton Window tilting towards the right, American politics has villainized the Green New Deal for its expensive goals. Even Joe Biden in his presidential campaign has denied association with it. Fiscal conservatism, no matter the political affiliation, is popular because it’s seen as a “moderate” stance when issues come up with a big price tag. However, withholding funding isn’t the absence of action, but a deliberate one. It’s saying to the communities that need funding, “We value money more than your life.” If socially liberal, fiscal conservative ideologs really valued freedom, they wouldn’t be fiscally conservative. What they really mean when they say that they value freedom is not freedom for all people, but freedom for their wallets.
Let's Go Brandon
Nov 27, 2021 at 11:40 am
Berkeley, bringing socialism to commies like you.
P
Nov 17, 2021 at 9:28 pm
No
Maxx Madison
Nov 15, 2021 at 9:33 am
When I think of being fiscally conservative, I don’t think about it in the same way as outlined in this opinion piece. I have historically considered myself to be “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” and what I mean when I say fiscally conservative is that: I recognize that we need to spend money to fix social problems and I am more than OK with that, however, I see wasteful spending across the board at levels that are simply mind blowing. My ask is this, manage the money that we do have better. Manage it like it’s your own household budget. Mange it as if there isn’t an unlimited supply that will keep spitting out cash whenever we need it. Manage it like it’s a scarce resource not a renewable one and IF after all of that, we still need more to improve the quality of life for all Americans (not just the privileged), then I’m happy to contribute more.
Silence Dogood
Oct 29, 2021 at 10:46 am
We’ve become a bit upturned in the expectations of this medium. “The Berkeley Beacon intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion.” However, no real meaningful discussion can be had herein. We are largely sharing our unabashed and unbridled opinions to a void — where occasionally someone else doing the same provides an echo of a reply.
This ‘article’ should be labeled as op-ed. I understand this moniker would fly in the face of Out Teach principles and I absolutely mean no offense to the author, it is a flaw in the editorial process of the Beacon. Out Teach should acknowledge that the anticipated agreement between a journalist and the reader is being intentionally broken — this is the author’s point of view peppered with some information that feels completely legitimate, but may not be fully considered of all of the subjects of the material — it is the author’s bias on this topic. Traditional journalism gives you the out-clause, so use it, make this a op-ed.
However, as it stands this article is clearly the author’s opinions presented as undeniable fact and that is egregious reporting. More concerning is that her point of view is actually targeted to what is largely a sympathetic audience (Emerson College and other Out Teach journalists) and then unapologetically exposed to the world without that underlying agenda being overtly stated. Alone either is dangerous and together this combination can be catastrophic to the pursuit of fair journalism, free thinking and ironically a more socially just world.
This point is further confirmed when you read responses like Nathan Mylott’s, who has accepted this point of view as a gold-standard definition of a socially liberal financially conservative individual — which it is not. A sentiment repeated in so many other preceding comments.
We have polarized our existence — not just in the United States. As an individual you are either one or the other and no longer able to have depth of character or intent while also maintaining personal integrity. We play too heavily to the extremes and this posturing does not adequately define the depth of the human condition. People who propose to have such depth, to be so inclined to be a blend of any ideologies, are dismissed as enigmas and not the norm or worse persecuted as liars. However, we must all keep in mind that if you define the totality of an object solely by it’s boundaries, the extreme outer edges, you are failing to account for the mass of that object — the total weight it brings to bear. These too, are reasons that meaningful discussion is not viable within this model — either as as communication medium or journalistic movement.
The reality of this or any construct is best understood by living and existing within its boundaries and, if daring enough, to move beyond them. I do not mean to diminish any life that the author has lived, but simply to suggest that it is of merit to acknowledge there is more road ahead of them than behind. Embark on a journey. Walk a mile in the shoes of another, do your journalistic duty to cross the mass of the subject you are so superficially defining by its edges, before forming such an unwavering position on their character and then relaying that to the world as if you have completed the former. Be upfront, say your taking the short path and that this is your opinion.
You do not know me because you attended a class, or read a book, or heard someone else relaying their bias as if it were fact. You do not know me because others say the same thing and therefore it must be true. My sum is not found at the edges of your definition or assumptions, or even my own ideals or actions.
[NOTE: on the construct of Out Teach https://medium.com/reimaginingjournalism/out-teach-74db25947b44; The interesting thing is that the author is undertaking exactly what too many examples of mainstream media is already very guilty of executing and posturing like they are in opposition to their actions and creating a new paradigm. Hurst, would be proud. To be fair, no journalist completely removes themselves from the process of developing a story, but a good journalist does remove themselves when they present their story and great journalists actively temper their reporting by using how they feel as a compass to explore areas which they would not naturally delve. They drive into the uncomfortable details — when uncomfortable, push harder — and use their bias both to expose the support and opposition of a topic absent of their personal perceptions in a fair way. They don’t drive a narrative from their point of view, they expose a narrative as it exists from “ALL SIDES”. If you are literally accepting the language of “Both Sides” to mean two — you are misunderstanding the way in which the English language is often deployed. In reality, “Both Sides” should be construed as a euphemism to mean every or all points of view that need to be exposed. Frankly, this can certainly include the author’s, but to be fair it cannot be solely that of the author. Simply painting the presentation of your personal and largely unfettered bias as a new form of journalism is lazy and unfair to your audience and subject.]
Conor
Dec 31, 2021 at 5:35 am
This is the best “internet comment” I have ever read. It deserved multiple reads.
Nathan Mylott
Oct 23, 2021 at 5:12 pm
Thank you for explaining this. I was unfamiliar with the term. I saw a dating profile that looked interesting but she identified as fiscally conservative socially liberal. I didn’t know what it meant. You explained it best and now I know to run away screaming.
Fiscally Conservative evidently means a person who’s Conservative but knows it’s immoral so downplays it. It’s essentially saying “I’m an elitist twat who hates poor people so I can feel better than others but hey, I wish those stupid lazy degenerates all the best.”
Jessica Dubé
Nov 15, 2021 at 9:54 am
🤣🤣🤣 wow! That’s your take? How very “woke” of you!!!
Barney the Dinosaur
Oct 11, 2021 at 10:29 pm
Someone is way too high on propaganda.
Wall
Nov 12, 2021 at 7:54 am
“Fiscally Conservative evidently means a person who’s Conservative but knows it’s immoral so downplays it. It’s essentially saying ‘I’m an elitist twat who hates poor people so I can feel better than others but hey, I wish those stupid lazy degenerates all the best.'” – Nathan Mylott, comment above
Thought you should read it again
Dienekes
Oct 1, 2021 at 1:33 pm
It’s not surprising to me conservatives are angered by this article. Although it is spot on, they really don’t want to acknowledge it. Very few of the comments ACTUALLY address the issues that Paige brings up in the article, and those that do show exactly why Paige is 100% right about this position being oxymoronic.
A great example is the comment that contained the statement, “However, one doesn’t have to support a massive Green New Deal spending program to find innovative solutions to climate change.” We are hurtling headlong toward massive climate disaster to the point of making the planet uninhabitable in the not-to-distant future, but conservatives are TERRIFIED that they might have to spend a nickel to preserve the planet for their children and grandchildren. Conservatism is all about personal greed and damn anyone else. The comments here clearly show that. They like to pretend they are standing on the high ground, but they (probably intentionally) miss each and every point Paige makes, which at the exact same time proving her right.
Evan or sum idk my mom smoked crack
Oct 24, 2021 at 8:46 pm
Not even political I just looked up the term and found this but that aside, you sound like a dick lmao
Gabriel Pruiett
Sep 21, 2021 at 1:17 pm
Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge and that’s all this article is.
Logan Hankin
Aug 13, 2021 at 6:44 pm
Personally, I think that socialist progressives are the true oxymoron. As documented countless times throughout history, socialism negatively impacts not just societally oppressed people, but all people as a whole. Capitalism, although definitely complicit in the injustices of society, is not actively trying to deepen them. Look at the progress for women or Black people in capitalist America for example. Although there isn’t true equality in society yet, the overall trend has been towards increased equality. On the other hand, in a socialist country, everyone IS equal. Equally impoverished and oppressed, that is. The conditions of minorities and oppressed groups in America are better than the average worker under communism. The issue is thinking of socialism as a magic bullet to equality. It’s not, because that magic bullet doesn’t exist. The path to equality is slow and arduous, and it’s one that we currently walk under capitalism. Things do improve under capitalism, but only over time. And although it’s not fast enough, it’s as fast as it gets. Socialism is born out of impatience for equality to come faster than it is able to.
Alma Oscar
Jun 7, 2021 at 12:48 pm
Caring about personal freedom in all areas doesn’t make me a hypocrite. It just means you don’t understand my ethics. Your ethics include stealing as much as you can from the rich and distributing it. Mine simply involve providing everyone with maximum freedom and allowing everything else to happen on a VOLUNTARY basis without a gun to my head or threats of imprisonment.
But I guess you “can’t understand that” Lol. Either you’re really uninformed or just didn’t have anything to write about.
Jake
Apr 25, 2021 at 5:17 pm
Hi Paige,
I disagree that the phrase ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ is an oxymoron. Many of these folks have the integrity to advocate for less government intervention in all aspects of life. Holding such a world view does not mean that one doesn’t care about people; more often than not, all that it means is that one doesn’t believe a large bureaucracy is not the most effective way to help. A fiscally conservative, socially liberal platform is the best option we have to make the United States a better country for everyone.
1. Foreign Policy
Born out of a need to oppose the Soviets after World War 2, the United States took the role of world police, ensuring global trade could flourish without issue. As a consequence, we have hundreds of bases around the world, other prospering nations aren’t responsible for their own defense, war torn regions directly trace back their suffering to our actions, and we spend close to one trillion dollars a year maintaining this global infrastructure. While many countries may benefit from our protection, other nations do not, and arguably the United States is included in the latter group as our economy does not heavily rely on trade. The fiscal conservative wishes to withdraw from this role because of the sheer scope of the cost, and the social liberal wishes to withdraw from this role because of the negative externalities. One can hold both views without being contradictory.
2. Patent Reform
Drug prices are notoriously high in the United States, even though the US is responsible for the most innovation of new drugs. Many countries abroad can provide these drugs for much cheaper, while the US is held back by an ineffective patent law system. Scaling back patent restrictions allows markets in drug prices to operate much more effectively, and it allows folks with a critical need for various drugs to purchase them with dignity. The fiscal conservative wishes to ease laws and regulations governing our markets, and the social liberal wishes to give more purchasing power to vulnerable members of our society. One can hold both views without being contradictory.
3. The War on Drugs
Our policy on drug prohibition has proven to be a massive failure, and it has cost the United States an estimated trillion dollars since 1971. The impact has also seen the breakdown of various communities via the opioid and crack epidemics, the stalling of mental health research, and an exploded prison population. The fiscal conservative wishes to stop wasting money on ineffective prohibition policies, and the social liberal wishes to reduce the prison population of marginalized communities. One can hold both views without being contradictory.
4. Climate Change
The United States is slowly becoming more unified on the idea that climate change is indeed a man-made phenomenon, although I will concede there is more resistance on the political right. However, one doesn’t have to support a massive Green New Deal spending program to find innovative solutions to climate change. There are plenty of solutions for climate change that fiscal conservatives could support, including a revenue neutral carbon tax (regarded by economists as one of the most effective solutions to fighting climate change), an end to oil subsidies (20 billion a year in the US we could save), or a revenue neutral land value tax (Henry George was one of the most influential progressive thinkers in the late 19th century, and his ideas have been promoted by notable conservatives like Milton Friedman). The fiscal conservative wishes to replace inefficient taxes with more efficient taxes that promote sustainable use of our natural resources, and the social liberal wishes to minimize our impact on the environment. One can hold both views without being contradictory.
5. Interest
Every single year, we pay around 378 billion dollars to service our national debt. That’s 378 billion dollars we aren’t spending on infrastructure, scientific research, basic necessities, a social dividend, or anything else we may prioritize. What would this country be capable of if we had an extra thousand dollars for every US citizen every year? We may have different ideas on how to spend this money, but fiscal conservatives and social liberals should be able to agree that the scope of our national debt is a long term issue for the nation. If we don’t address this problem soon, we will be less and less capable of using public funds for the very social programs you advocate for. Forget UBI, single-payer healthcare, or tuition-free universities; we won’t be able to afford Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. The fiscal conservative wishes to stop wasting money on interest paid out to service our national debt, and the social liberal wishes to have more funds available to invest in our people. One can hold both views without being contradictory.
While I’ve highlighted several points above where it can be shown that “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” is not an oxymoron, I want to address why I think you believe this to be the case in the first place. Coming from a very liberal place such as Berkeley, I don’t believe you’ve had proper exposure to fiscally conservative ideas or thinkers. I would encourage you to study the work of David Friedman, Andreas Antonopoulos, and Joe Quirk. In doing so, you will realize that fiscal conservatives are not the apathetic, self-centered demons that many leftists may claim us to be. We can still care about social issues, and we have a lot of data-driven, market oriented solutions to bring to the table that are often overlooked.
Spending limitless amounts of public funds to fix social issues you care about isn’t always the best solution, or even a viable one. The political spectrum is much more complex than just a quadrant, let alone one single line. Systemic change can often occur most effectively by what we stop wasting resources on; it’s truly incredible to think of all the good we can do by simply stop spending money.
Thanks,
Jake
Ne Raw
Apr 4, 2021 at 11:08 pm
Cringe.
Clifton Gordon
Mar 17, 2021 at 2:36 pm
Good Morning Ms- Mr. fiscal conservative. What do you think about the United States Military spending more than double the amount of money on weapons than the next 14 countries in the world combined? “I am for a strong defense and no amount is too much to spend when it comes to keeping our country safe.” What is your position on a national $15.00 minimum wage for American workers? I am a fiscal conservative so naturally I am opposed to the government telling businesses how much they have to pay workers.” Thank you!
William
Feb 2, 2021 at 4:07 am
Liberal policy suggests band-aids not cures. Conservative policy suggests paying for cures to problems/issues so that the ‘sickness’ ceases to exist de-necessitating further cures, or certainly band-aids. Education is the most glaring sickness (govt corruption notwithstanding) this nation knows. A focus shift from throwing monetary band-aids on “social issues” to curing the underlying sickness causing the issues is a superior strategy in my view.
Scott
Feb 1, 2021 at 12:21 am
In my mind, any form of government must operate with the long term in mind. That is conservative thinking. Our government is not just for me, it is for all of us. It is not conservative to allow poor children to live in squalor, for my own benefit. Those children become part of the workforce in my retirement, and fund my social security payments, make decisions on policy and generally run things for me when I’m old. It is conservative thinking, to invest in people to provide the greatest return in output of those people, for my own gain. You are correct in your interpretation of the mindset of the modern conservative but that doesn’t mean they are actually being conservative. Short-sitedness, cannot be considered conservative. The ideology is akin to biting off ones nose to spite their face. People, are investments. They are investments that help all of us do better.
In terms of environment, destroying it to save a buck with no thought to the future, cannot be considered conservative . Especially if it will cost us 5 times more to fix it once it’s broken.
In short, the modern democrat is much more conservative than a Republican. Being socially conservative is simply being prejudiced toward people who don’t look, act or follow the same lifestyle you do. Lumping in people too stupid to invest in people or too shot-sited to realize that investment in others helps their own bottom line doesn’t or at least shouldn’t make them a conservative.
John Vincent
Jan 11, 2021 at 12:09 pm
Hi Paige,
I enjoyed this article and am curious of your opinion. I have always thought of myself as a Fiscal Conservative / Socially liberal and I tend to push for government to follow these ideologies. In brief, I feel it is important to be fiscally conservative at the state and federal level on a day to day basis in order to be able to act on social issues when they arise. An extreme case that is prevalent now is the topic of stimulus checks. If our federal government had a balanced budget or even operated with a surplus when COVID 19 hit, it would have been (to my mind) an easy decision to spend trillions of dollars on a real stimulus package for those in need.
To make a scaled down comparison, I have a wife, a young child, and we live in a home and pay a mortgage along with other “normal” bills. The fiscal conservative in me makes sure we have our basic needs met – food, housing, etc – as well as a rainy day fund. Last spring our furnace died and I was able to pay cash for a repair. From the socially liberal stand point, extra money or resources we have can go to helping others via things like donations, greater than average tips if we do curbside pickup or the rare case that we have dinner at a restaurant, so one and so forth.
Your quote describing a FC/SL person – “I care about people but not enough to see them cared for on a systemic level.” I don’t feel that describes me. I support things like universal heath care, paid leave for male/female parents, etc. but feel these topics should be included our definition of what everyone’s basic needs are while staying far shy of pathological altruism.
What are your thoughts on the above and, based on the limited knowledge you now have, would you consider me fiscally conservative / socially liberal?
-John