My Response to the claim that you can't be fiscally conservative and socially liberal

Spoiler Alert: You CAN be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Let the shock wash over you for a moment. Okay. Good.

Now, this piece over at Raw Story posits that the idea of being fiscally conservative and socially liberal/progressive are mutually exclusive. I have a theory as to why the writer felt this point needed to be made with urgency that I will get to a bit later, after I analyze (and decimate) her ridiculous claims and accusations.

Her first point is that the cycle of poverty is intrinsically linked to social issues and that fiscally conservative policies are inherently to blame for poverty and therefore social injustice. Okay. Whew. Where do I start with this one.

First and foremost, let's get this out of the way. The author, like most trying to make a case that is invalid, makes up her own definitions of words like 'justice' and 'social issue'. The implication is that if not everyone ends up at the equal place, they were not given equal opportunities, they were in a stacked game they could not get out of and that is, at it's core, the fault of the people who did succeed. Social Justice is a buzz word for anything a person feels is 'unfair' and as life is unfair it's a perfect perpetual banner to wave for quick emotional satisfaction. But let's dig a little deeper, eh?

There is no doubt that poverty leads to social problems. You will not find any reasonable person to disagree with that point. Here's a better question: how have liberal economic policies helped, in the least, alleviate poverty? I'll wait...Exactly. They haven't. In fact, fiscally conservative initiatives, like deregulation, low taxes for all, unrestricted contracts between employee and employer, less meddling in 'certification' mandates would promote domestic job growth, especially for those who are most in need of jobs. The old adage: 'Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he feeds himself for life' is a cliche, but it's true. The welfare state, especially one that incentivizes single parenthood, has done more to contribute to poverty than any single 'right wing' policy in the last 100 years. You don't get special marks for good intentions when the outcome has made the problem worse. Perhaps, I could argue that you cannot possibly care about the poor if you are a fiscal leftist.

Her second point is about domestic and workplace violence. You might be asking yourself what in the hell this has to do with being a fiscal conservative. Well, I'll tell you. Being a Capitalist means that you inherently condone everything any business does, ever. Always. It also means you oppose any kind of safety net whatsoever. No question. Oh wait. Not it doesn't. That just another one of her annoying straw men again. My bad.

First of all, even we Libertarians don't want to see people go hungry or homeless. We also know that not everyone CAN get ahead. There are some factors beyond people's control. The difference between an economic conservative and a economic progressive is 1) We do not believe the best answers to fix these problems or help these people lie with the inept, inefficient, expensive and power mad government. And 2) We do not believe that everyone getting help from the taxpayer is incapable of taking care of themselves. We are, of course, right on both counts.

So, tug on those emotional heart strings, girlfriend, but you've still neglected to show how economic progressivism is a cure to the problem of domestic/workplace violence.

Next up is disenfranchisement. Oh god. Okay. Her point being that the super-rich make economic policy and therefore the game is stacked. That's 100% true. Do you know who supports such a system? Economic Progressives who write the regulations based on the money they get from lobbyists. It is always ironic when a Big Government supporter has the audacity to complain about Crony Capitalism. Do you know who is to blame for Crony Capitalism? The government. The government doesn't actually HAVE to take money from corporations. They don't actually HAVE to do corporate bidding. They do, and they do it gladly and without apology. This is true of BOTH political parties in equal measure. A REAL fiscal conservative would not support Crony Capitalism (as it's not real Capitalism) OR Corporate Welfare. So, pick up your straw man, again, and move along.

Fourth, Racial Policing. Now, it takes a lot of chutzpah to paint FISCAL CONSERVATISM as the villain who created the 'pointless laws and fines' reality we live in today. First of all, if you look at the situations outlined in her article (and elsewhere in America) of racial profile, militarized police, absurd laws designed to prey on the poor...you are looking at all Democrat run, tax and spend economic paradigms. Ferguson? Welfare dependent economically progressive. NYC? A legal/fine nightmare of economic progressives. Baltimore? You guessed it...tax and spend progressives.

This article reads like a laundry list of liberal policy issues that were, in fact, created by liberal policies.

Fifth: drug and prison policy. Okay. I agree with her (without the emotional embellishments) that this is a big problem. But both progressive and libertarians (economically left and right respectively) agree here. This is a social issue. Socially if you think the War on Drugs is a good idea, you are a social conservative. No question. And fiscally, if you think spending money on the War on Drugs has merit, you are a fiscal progressive. So, yet again, the fiscally conservative position reigns supreme.

Prison reform, too, is a social issue. Those unwilling to look at it critically are socially backward 'law and order' types. This has nothing to do with one's opinion that the government should remain as minimally involved in the free market as possible.

Sixth is a doozie. Even as I've previously pointed out that regulation CONTRIBUTES to poverty, she (unsurprisingly) is determined to believe that Deregulation will mean we will go back to the early ages of the Industrial Revolution. What progressives often forget about that rocky time in Capitalism is that it was already on it's way to fixing itself before the Government stepped in. Unions were the  public response to unfair and unjust working hours, wages, and conditions. You see, we don't actually NEED an overpaid Congressman to solve all our problems. Capitalism, on its own, will work itself out and generally faster and more smoothly than the government could ever dream to work out.

As I was saying to my husband just this morning, "why is it so hard to trust the market which is predictably run by competition, profit, and need, but it's so easy to trust politicians who are power hungry, willing to lie about motives, and have Corporations in their back pocket?" Who regulates the market in fiscal progressivism? A bunch of lawyers being paid under the table. Not so noble, is it?

Last is 'free trade'. My main issue with this is the pipe dream under which this author functions. I'll bet all the money I have (not much) that she wrote this thing on an Apple computer. Which means some slave somewhere made its parts. The global slave labor market is horrifying. But no politician, save for someone living in the giggle weeds with no hope of ever getting elected, will ever support an entirely fair trade initiative. Not liberal. Not conservative. Not libertarian. Not progressive. It is infeasible unless you expect people to scale back their way of life. Living beyond our means is something that crosses all political ideologies. We, in the West, live a good life on the backs of people who live shit lives. Even the author.

But here is an interesting note about that. Those people living shit lives would be living even shittier lives without the work we give them. Does that justify it? No. Not really. But we don't control their governments. We don't control their economic policies. We merely take advantage of them. All of us. Not just 'evil' conservatives.

She claims that economic progressives are ALSO opposed to wasteful spending. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...oh wait. I think she was trying to be serious. If that were the case, why do so many of them cling to failed social programs or insist that 'more money' will fix public schools (or everything)? We all know that a Big Government progressive never saw a government spending project they didn't love. And when you disagree they spew emotional 'WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE POOR!" rhetoric at you. Let's not pretend every program the left backs is essential, efficient, and lacks massive amounts of wastefulness.

But now that I've pointed out how silly her points are, let's talk about why she wrote the stupid thing at all. It seems perfectly clear to me. The newest generations, growing tired of the inequity of the welfare state, but unwilling to side with religious nutcases, are moving closer and closer to libertarianism. They are sick of picking between the lesser of two evils: fiscally stupid or socially stupid.

Progressives win elections not on economic policy (because it is unsound) but on social policy. They make people afraid of Republicans/Conservatives, and until recently that has worked. But as more and more self identified 'conservatives' are becoming more progressive about things like gay rights, abortion rights, drug legalization, etc...they are seeing cracks in their support. It must be galling. That's why the writer took such pains to paint all fiscal conservatives as 'Tea Partiers" and pretend the Capitalism and Crony Capitalism are the same thing while invoking the Koch Brothers like a talisman she rubs for comfort.

You can be a fiscal conservative (or Free Market Capitalist) and be a social progressive. in fact, the two go hand-in-hand. They come from a place that says, 'Just because you were elected by 'the majority' doesn't mean you have a right to tell me how to live, how to run my business, or how to spend my money.' In other worse, basic liberty.