Why Being a "Social Liberal, but Fiscal Conservative" is Cognitive Dissonance

In such a politicized world, there remains a sector of voters claiming to value protecting citizens’ rights in this country and as well as their wallets. These voters accept the label of a “social liberal, fiscal conservative.” In other words, someone who would quickly affirm the right to same-sex marriage but hesitate to support welfare policies if it raised their taxes. To many, this is a compelling philosophical cohort to join, one where equality is cherished so far as it does not cross over into the world of finances. However, this stance is one more closely rooted in fiction than in fact. In today’s world, how can one truly be a social liberal but a fiscal conservative?

To truly understand the deep-seated disparities that keep a true social liberal and fiscal conservative from actualizing, one must first understand what makes up the basics of liberal and conservative fiscal policies in government. The economy is a fickle and ever-changing organism that can be dramatically affected by many factors, causing widespread consequences. In the form of regulation and solution, government intervention in the economy is often what fundamentally separates liberals and conservatives. Fiscal conservatives most likely identify as proponents of the free-market economy and limited government intervention, whereas liberal conservatives trust the government to prevent market failures in the economy and invest in sectors that stimulate the economy. (Source).

Another difference between the two arises when looking at the economy from a public policy standpoint. I had the opportunity to speak with Larry Rosenthal, a renowned public policy professor at UC Berkeley, on this topic specifically. He characterizes a liberal fiscal policy as one “that would start with the notion of government’s role in resolving disparity and ensuring a level playing field,” further commenting that “social welfare and distributive justice necessitates sharing resources, and also a sharing of productivity.” Government interference is an underlying aspect here. They can implement a policy that ensures resources are distributed fairly and that those who are historically wealthy and powerful do not monopolize the market. In a free-market economy, those who have had long-standing control over most of the market will continue to do so, preventing redistribution and widening the wealth gap. At its core, liberal fiscal policy would welcome government intervention, while conservative policy would reject it.

Now that we have established that conservative fiscal policy believes in limited to no government intervention, we can see how those who claim to back these policies cannot possibly support socially liberal policies at the same time. Social liberalism necessitates government intervention to address economic and social issues, covering a spectrum ranging from workplace inequality to systematic racism to healthcare, through progressive policy, increased taxes, and deficit spending. (Source). While many fiscal conservatives may claim to support equality, non-intervention by the government would only allow for the existing inequities in the market, and disparities in society would grow exponentially. To support equality so long as it does not interfere with your bank account is no longer plausible as the systematic inequalities in this country require funding to combat.

How Fiscal and Social Policy Relate to Abortion Rights

A clear example of how fiscal and social policy are forever intertwined is through the example of abortion rights. The ruling of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade prevented any state from stopping a woman seeking an abortion either through laws or through extreme barriers. In my conversation with Professor Rosenthal, he mentioned that “once Roe came down, for example, those who were pro-life had to take for granted that any deep restriction or limitation on first trimester, reproductive dominion of the woman carrying the child could not be intruded upon.” He went on to say that “therefore, what is a pro-life conservative to do? Well, they can fight it out in the budget.” Access to abortions is directly tied to budgets, as funding of abortion clinics or other women’s health organizations such as Planned Parenthood is dependent on policy and government discretion as it is funded largely by government aid in the form of Medicaid reimbursements. As we have seen in recent years, an effective way of preventing reasonable access to abortion has been through slashing state budgets. In this case, funding and fiscal policy are directly tied to a socially liberal platform’s fundamental aspects such as maintaining access to reproductive options. Many who claim to fall into the camp of socially liberal but fiscal conservative would support a woman’s right to choose but fail to understand how their support of government non-intervention would prevent reasonable access to abortions.

A socially liberal, fiscally conservative philosophy goes beyond ideology, as inevitably a choice has to be made in the voting booth between a candidate that fulfills the social liberal label versus one that warrants a fiscally conservative one. In the 2016 election, voters who ascribe to this camp, representing around 15% of all voters, were more likely to vote for Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton (Source). Since his election, Trump’s actions have continuously been against socially liberal pursuits, even going as far as revoking Obama-era protections for particular social issues. Even more so, his election has allowed for three new Supreme Court appointments, bringing justices into power that can reverse critical social protections, such as Roe v. Wade. Socially liberal but fiscally conservative voters have historically elected both Democrats and Republicans, the latter of which have had a massive impact on the social policies these voters claim to support.

Summary

The prescription of social liberalism, fiscal conservatism fails to hold up under criticism. Social issues and fiscal issues can never fully be separated. Budgets influence the success of institutions because the allocation of funds is telling of an institution’s values; therefore, this impacts their ability to appropriately address social failures. Government intervention is required for positive change, and a fiscal platform that fundamentally rejects government action cannot effectively support social issues. Furthermore, conservatives are no longer fighting solely for fiscal platforms; they are fighting at the highest levels of government to revoke rights and prevent equitable change. Those who claim to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative can no longer oscillate between parties. Ultimately, those who genuinely support equitable change and the full spectrum of socially liberal policies must understand the power of their vote and use it to support candidates that actively fight for these policies.

Are you in to support e2c’s efforts to create long-lasting systemic change through our blog by donating $1? Every dollar you contribute today will help us keep our movement going! Donate today via ActBlue