Would you vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal 3rd party candidate?

[DominionSeraph]

I have a hard time seeing how life could come from non-life.

You have a hard time seeing a lot of things.

You'd do well to learn that the bounds of your comprehension do not define the bounds of reality. The universe is under no obligation to fit within the understanding of the smallest of things.

 

[sao123]

fiscal policy means nothing to me... I will never vote for anyone who is not a social conservative.

That said, a social conservative who is not a corporatist (fiscally liberal?), might be intruiging.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Yeah, you're gonna have to define what you mean.

Hearing how people define simple terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' speaks volumes of how and why they think.

To me, economics can be distilled down to how high the tax rate is and how many services the government provides. This, of course, runs the gamut from the most theoretically 'conservative' simple societies where there are no taxes and no services to what are perhaps the most 'liberal' modern societies like Sweden where taxation is extremely high, and the government provides a permanent welfare state. Realistically in the US, a fiscal conservative supports low tax rates and a government that does not provide many services.

Social issues need not be economically relevant. Teaching intelligent design, gay marriage, drug legalization, and abortion are not necessarily tied to money. Some social issues are very economically relevant, like defining the minimally humane provisions for keeping a person alive. It's a pointless exercise if you consider only economically relevant social issues, because as has been stated, you can't be fiscally conservative and socially liberal if your idea of social liberalism requires fiscal liberalism as well.

Most of my friends voiced a belief that our country as it is now is too economically liberal and too socially conservative. That is, taxation rates are too high, the government provides too much, and they think it is unfortunate that gay marriage is mostly illegal, that drugs are mostly illegal, that access to abortions is too frequently threatened, that moves to push religion (in the form of intelligent design) into the public sphere too common and too forceful.

So, to me a fiscally conservative, socially liberal politician would move to decrease tax rates, cut government spending across the board (from the military to corporate subsidies to the welfare system), legalize drugs (especially marijuana), work to preserve abortion access and keep intelligent design out of public schools. Neither party embraces this platform, hence the need for someone with these beliefs to run as a third party candidate.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A conservative has religious responses based on fear and ignorance.

Really? Tell shiner that.

Actually upon looking at your post, I'd say you aren't a shining example of objectivity. It looks like you decided to find everything you didn't like and say they were conservative. Of course I can (and no doubt some have) do the same with liberals. That would be nonsense for the most part although examples of lesser people claiming any political ideological affiliation can be made. I won't bother because any argument based on that is absurd and can (and should) be dismissed out of hand.

 

[DominionSeraph]

To me, economics can be distilled down to how high the tax rate is and how many services the government provides.

How the hell does that work?
If I define you as a part of the government in charge of disbursement of funds to yourself, your tax rate is now 100%, with no underlying change.

What is an ant's tax rate in their local economy?

"Government" is an abstract social concept. While tax rate can be indicative of the level of individual specialization if "government" is defined as "the mechanism through which incomplete functions are traded until completeness results," government isn't necessarily limited to that. Also, that defines NOTHING about the underlying economic structure!

Economics started with the energy budget defined by the Big Bang. Everything is based on that. You can't take that, with its derivatives of solar, geothermal, and nuclear energy from which life takes its energy and distill every possible way in which that relationship may form down to "tax rate re: government."
You could start defining willy-nilly and then describe them as "tax" or "non-tax", but that is meaningless as it isn't prescriptive. It's a waste of time as it doesn't add any new information to the whole.

So I don't see how you're defining economics in terms of things that are themselves defined by an economic structure and that don't prescribe anything.

 

[a777pilot]

In 2012, any third party vote is a vote for a second term of The Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle.

 

[Munky]

Yeah, you're gonna have to define what you mean.

A conservative has religious responses based on fear and ignorance. So, someone with an unreasoned dogmatic insistence on small government is a conservative. Someone who sticks their head in the sand to avoid being faced with balancing the budget is also a conservative. Someone who is afraid of anything different in the social landscape than to what he has become accustomed is a conservative. Someone who wants massive change to a theocracy where we're burning witches and lynching blacks is also a conservative.

"Conservative" describes the person, it does not define a proposition that comes from him. Liberalism is defined as having the freedom to take the most intelligent position, so you cannot deny the Liberal a position just because a conservative also holds it. Just because a conservative has reached a position in an utterly retarded way doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong, so all "conservative" positions are possible liberal ones.

What you're describing is how dumb college kids with no life experience think about politics. In reality, a "conservative" leans towards maximizing individual freedom, and minimizing government intervention. A "liberal" prefers nanny government to decide what's best for everyone, and equalize the playing field for anyone who feels entitled to preferential treatment.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Actually upon looking at your post, I'd say you aren't a shining example of objectivity. It looks like you decided to find everything you didn't like and say they were conservative.

You want an objective definition? Here:

tgnh xi,se;pldf9034;' ydfx'[
df[dklpdfdsdfp';/.;6ds'

That's 1/infinity.

But now the problem is: By what value structure do we decide that this is better or worse than anything else? And if deciding between value structures, by what value structure is that decision made?

(Don't worry if you don't understand that. It's really quite basic, but it's still above what I expect anyone on P&N to get)


Anyway, this is why we define terms. Most of real debate consists of just defining the terms. Once you have everything delineated, the rest is quite easy.

 

[DominionSeraph]

What you're describing is how dumb college kids with no life experience think about politics. In reality, a "conservative" leans towards maximizing individual freedom, and minimizing government intervention. A "liberal" prefers nanny government to decide what's best for everyone, and equalize the playing field for anyone who feels entitled to preferential treatment.

So we're using Fox News' definitions for retarded elementary school students?

because... ponies.

You can use those definitions and I'll post ponies, because both are just as relevant to intelligent discussion.
(IOW, stop boring me)

 

[MotF Bane]

In 2012, any third party vote is a vote for a second term of The Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle.

You still have failed to provide your explanation for why you call him that. Also, your idea is ludicrous.

t

 

[DominionSeraph]

You still have failed to provide your explanation for why you call him that.

Does it matter?
He defines himself as The Fool for using it. As such is accurate, it's a handy shortcut, no?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

How the hell does that work?

I'm not really interested in obfuscating economics as they relate to an individual's relationship with the government with basic physics principles. I'll simply say that to me, if I am required to give the government my money, I want to approve of how it's spent, within reason. I would not choose to live in an extremely economically conservative society that has no taxation and does not provide any services like the creation and maintenance of infrastructure, domestic and foreign security, etc. Nor would I choose to live in an extremely liberal society that taxes me at a very high rate so that it can provide services I deem not the responsibility of the government, like maintaining a permanent welfare state (for individuals and corporations).

...This is not a complicated topic. What's difficult is getting a plurality of Americans to agree on what the government should do, and what's fair to pay for it.

 

[Siddhartha]

No, I will not do anything that could help someone like Mr George W Bush or Ms Bachmann win the White House.

 

[jteef]

i don't know where a fiscal conservative is going to find the money for all the social liberal programs. the whole premise sounds oxymoronic to me.

 

[Munky]

So we're using Fox News' definitions for retarded elementary school students?

because... ponies.

You can use those definitions and I'll post ponies, because both are just as relevant to intelligent discussion.
(IOW, stop boring me)

Not my problem if you prefer communicating in cartoons, seeing as written language is too confusing for you. Is that what they speak on your msnbc?

 

[mcmilljb]

What you're describing is how dumb college kids with no life experience think about politics. In reality, a "conservative" leans towards maximizing individual freedom, and minimizing government intervention. A "liberal" prefers nanny government to decide what's best for everyone, and equalize the playing field for anyone who feels entitled to preferential treatment.

What? Conservatives have been anything but trying to maximize individual freedom and minimizing government intervention. They're against regulations that would protect individuals. You can pick any regulation issue, and I can point out where "conservatives" pick donor and business interests over individuals, especially ones to protect people's safety. They want police state policies. They want to nullify our Bill of Rights for controlling us. They want to waste money on military-industrial complex boondoggles. They want to waste money and lives in a war without a plan. There is NO PLAN for Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. There never was when we went in, and never has been one since Obama.

 

[Munky]

What? Conservatives have been anything but trying to maximize individual freedom and minimizing government intervention. They're against regulations that would protect individuals. You can pick any regulation issue, and I can point out where "conservatives" pick donor and business interests over individuals, especially ones to protect people's safety. They want police state policies. They want to nullify our Bill of Rights for controlling us. They want to waste money on military-industrial complex boondoggles. They want to waste money and lives in a war without a plan. There is NO PLAN for Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. There never was when we went in, and never has been one since Obama.

That's not conservatism, it's politics run by lobbyists. Does Illinois and Cahlifornia sound like the bastion of personal freedom to you? Because to me they reek of draconian gun control, a bloated corrupt bureaucracy, and social welfare policies that leave the state broke.

 

[sandorski]

You need neither. What you need is Fiscal Prudence. Taxes must go up and Spending must go down. So far the only Party that sees this are the Democrats, but they lack the intestinal fortitude to force it through.

 

[dennilfloss]

Fiscally responsible, socially liberal

In Canada we call this the Liberal Party and I've been voting for them since the 70s.

 

[PrinceofWands]

What you're describing is how dumb college kids with no life experience think about politics. In reality, a "conservative" leans towards maximizing individual freedom, and minimizing government intervention. A "liberal" prefers nanny government to decide what's best for everyone, and equalize the playing field for anyone who feels entitled to preferential treatment.

I'll respond to this with a copy/paste of a piece I wrote some time ago.

The Political Switcheroo


While debating an online piece dealing with firearm rights I found myself having to pause to give a history lesson about the very nature of our parties, and our founding ideology. I was amused that I seemed to always have to stop and give that piece of lecture whenever talking about this issue. On a whim I've decided to offer it here as well. Partly for its educational value to those who may not have ever caught me on the lecture circuit, and partly just so I can copy paste from it in the future when I have to give it again.

First know this: I am not a member of any political party. More than that, I am opposed to the very idea of political parties. I believe them to be anathema to liberty and more importantly to reason, which I hold sacred above all else. Stronger still is my abhorrence of reducing the entirety of political, economic, and social thought to a single axis of belief with only enough room for two parties of consequence (one for each side of the axis). Therefore when I tell you these things the bias does not rest to one side or the other, but completely apart from the machine which is the modern United States political landscape. It is still a bias, to be sure, but not one you may be used to.

Some people find that impossible to accept, and insist that I must be more to 'one side than the other'. While I don't believe this to be true, for the sake of argument I would concede that if I had to choose, I would be a liberal. I only require that you in turn acknowledge that when I say that, I mean an original core liberal, and not 'a democrat'. So what is the difference? The difference is the point of this piece.

Faulty though it may be, modern citizens of the United States label the political mono-axis Liberal v Conservative. The parties which embrace these labels then go on to explain how liberals are all about progress and change, and conservatives are about traditional American values. I'm here to tell you that they're either liars, ignorant, or at the very least dyslexic, because they've transposed their labels with their actual foundations.

I'll take a moment here to inform you all that this ideological dichotomy actually has no history in our national heritage. While we've always had two dominate political 'parties', they were originally the single issue of states rights versus strong central federal government. Later they hinged on the issue of slavery, and after that they were split along industrial versus agricultural differences. At NO POINT in our formation and first century as a nation was there such a thing as we now describe as 'liberal or conservative'. EVERY American citizen was a liberal by definition.

You see, a liberal is an adherent of 'liberalism'. There are some different sub-categories of that broad idea (classical, social, etc), but the overall concept remains the same. The root of liberal is 'liber', which in the latin means simply 'free'. Liberalism, as a political construct, was the result of hundreds of years of oppression of the common man. It was an outcry against organized religion (specifically the power and dedicated ignorance of the the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches), hereditary classism, monarchies (ie the divine right of kings), serfdom, and ESPECIALLY intellectual commodities. Nearly all of the tenets of liberalism are simply a way to oppose those power bases. It was, in essence, the political road to freedom for the common man.

When the colonial citizens rose to overthrow their English rulers they were exercising liberalism. The nation that they formed, in letter and practice, was among the earliest and best examples of the enlightenment ideology of liberalism. They threw off inherited right and power, denied the church any political power, developed checks and balances against a powerful central ruling figure, elevated the yeoman farmer from serfdom to citizenship, and guaranteed the availability of academic, artistic, and intellectual pursuits for all.

That isn't to suggest that they were Godless men or a bunch of self-indulgent hippies mind you. It's merely that they imposed a separation between oppressive power bases (church, money, the power hungry) and politics which might impact the common man. They were all for individual freedoms in these areas. They were mostly religious, embraced fledgling capitalism, and revered leaders greatly. They just acted to keep those things from dictating law, or acting for the benefit of any but the masses. THAT is the basic makeup of a liberal, and what defined America as different from colonial England.

That's why modern partisanship is so funny to me. Conservatives, seeking to involve the church with the nation; reward and elevate the wealthy; and empower our rulers, claim to be the party 'of United States tradition'. Meanwhile 'liberals' look with horror upon anyone who would dare suggest the people should rise against a government seeking to restrict our liberties. What the right is actually trying to 'conserve' is colonial English rule, ala pre-revolution. What the left is seeking to 'liberate' is our individual rights and freedoms. Both are acting in exact opposition to their embraced definition.


Obviously from my standpoint both parties are ludicrous and damaging. However, since we can't seem to get rid of them and create a better system I at least wish everyone would take a moment to understand just what it is they're claiming to be, and respond in debates accordingly. Until then you'll understand why I smile and shake my head sadly whenever someone calls me a conservatard for carrying a weapon in defense against government oppression.

 

[sactoking]

i don't know where a fiscal conservative is going to find the money for all the social liberal programs. the whole premise sounds oxymoronic to me.

Not necessarily. If you look at "socially liberal" in the context of current "liberal" Democrats, that could be the case. But it is possible to separate the "liberal" from the Democrat. For example:

Current "liberals" are known for big government, entitlement programs, large social welfare spending, etc. At the root, then, they're known for 'spending lots of money'. However, current "conservatives" spend just as much money (see: military) but on different programs and while pretending like they don't. So, what could possibly be oxymoronic (high spending) is not an inherent trait of "liberalism" but instead an inherent trait of "career politicism". "Liberalism", at its core, is better defined by gay marriage, abortion, and even gun rights than it is by TANIF, SSI, or Medicare. Someone who is socially liberal, taking a live-and-let-live approach to social issues, and fiscally conservative ("what's yours is yours and mine is mine") is actually less oxymoronic than either of the major political parties today.

R = "Small government and lots of freedom, unless you disagree with me, then I'm going to spend a shit ton of money to make you agree with me."

D = "People should be free to live their lives how they choose, but if you choose to make money then we are free to choose to take it away from you."

Really, two sides of the same coin, just wasting the same amount of money on different things.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You still have failed to provide your explanation for why you call him that. Also, your idea is ludicrous.

Rancher – Sure. Well. You know how when you’re driving down a country road..well, maybe you don’t….but, as you’re driving down a country road, you come across a fence post, much like this one here, with a turtle balancing on top of it. We call that a post turtle.

Journalist – Okay. But, what does that have to do with Senator Obama?

Rancher - Well. You know he didn’t get up there by himself. You know he doesn’t belong up there. He sure as hell doesn’t know what to do now that he is up there, and, you just want to help the dumb ass get down on the ground where he belongs.

From http://thebobofiles.com/?p=835

 

[Craig234]

I always vote third party

The only time I do not vote third party, is if there is not a third party candidate.

After bill clinton did a flip flop on nafta, I gave up on the 2 party system.

There is a group that actually has a chance to have power, unlike third parties generally.

The progressive wing of Democrats.

And they are generally against 'free trade' agreements that are good for owners but bad for workers. Bill Clinton was not a progressive.

They aren't technically a third party, but they're the closest thing, and the strongest.

If we'd elected Howard Dean as we should have, we'd have had a President.

 

[Craig234]

I find the labels 'fiscally liberal/conservative' basically useless. And 'socially liberal' is pretty vague in distinguishing between libertarians and progressives. I'd like better definitions.

For example, is 'fiscally liberal' about debt or spending? Are Democrats for more spending and less debt fiscally conservative or liberal? How about more spending for the military?

How about spending to help people versus spending for investing in the country? Is the latter 'liberal'?

 

[halik]

There is a group that actually has a chance to have power, unlike third parties generally.

The progressive wing of Democrats.

And they are generally against 'free trade' agreements that are good for owners but bad for workers. Bill Clinton was not a progressive.

They aren't technically a third party, but they're the closest thing, and the strongest.

If we'd elected Howard Dean as we should have, we'd have had a President.

Wow, I thought that Nadel stole his thunder?