Why I am a social conservative but an economic liberal (or why I am a moderate Republican)

[greybeta]

Eventually, any blogger who is interested in politics must give away his or her own politics in her writing. Most of my fine friends know that I am a registered Republican, yet I neither walk nor quack like a bigoted conservative. Since I am someone who is afraid of what people think of my true opinions likes to hide their true thoughts, I can appear to waffle on almost every political subject. That's what I get for trying to listen to both sides. The problem with saying you'll listen to both sides is that you appear weak. Kerry lost because he seemed to be wishy-washy while Bush at least pretended that the Republicans knew what was best for the country. Appearances count for a lot in our fast food American culture.

I was a lot closer to Kerry in political ideals but Bush convinced me to vote for him.

bonerici taught me something about writing on politics. Politics is something where people are emtionally charged. You may not always be able to use pure reason and logic to win arguments. Sometimes, you purposely have to p*ss off the enemy to get them off base and let them fall into your hands. Ferrett-sensei once wrote that you should try to write more to the left or right than you really are because you will learn more about yourself that way. That's because we often know more about our enemies than our friends. Mrs. Ferrett once wrote that we often forget about the Silent Majority when it comes to politics. The Silent Majority are people like me who'd prefer to keep their political opinions unknown.

You can only make enemies by talking religion and politics.

On those political memes, I usually score close towards the middle. Something like 55% conservative and 45% liberal. This fits right into my moderate Republicanism. On the political memes with the four quadrants, I think I scored as Totalitarian, or whatever one was in Quadrant III for my algebraicly proficient friends. This labeled me as a social conservative but an economic liberal.

How is it even possible to be a social conservative but an economic liberal?

Let's see here, my parents grew up in a traditional Asian family. Many traditional Asian philosophies jive with conservative philosophies, namely the respect for authority. My parents also had some irrational hatred of the Kennedys, so the Republican party it was for them. And they're exactly the type of voters Bush likes: Straight-ticket voters. Yep, when my mom and dad see that R next to someone's name, they're checking it. I mean the Republican candidate could have been arrested for murdering his opponent and my parents would still vote for the guy with the R next to his name. They believe in an all-or-nothing philosophy; either you believe in your party or you don't.

I also grew up in a Southern Baptist church, which as most people know is one of the most conservative denominations in Protestantism. The Southern Baptist Convention does not allow women clergy and they even once unsuccessfully tried to ban Disney from their congregations due to the fact that Disney hired gay employees. Teenager mothers are stigmas in a Brimstone Baptist church, as are gays, lesbians, transsexuals, polyamorites, etc. Sunday dress is a big deal with Brimstone Baptists because one should put on his or her best face in front of the Almighty Lord (i.e., boys should not wear earrings, girls should wear skirts that go past their knees, and goth wear in general is fronwed upon). Never forget your Bible, which is the immutable Word of God. Sinners go to hell each week, so make sure you and your loved ones are saved. Friends, too. No dancing, drinking, or watching naughty movies. Anything with witchcraft or Satanic imagery is contraband, so no Harry Potter or Magic: The Gathering. Do not allow your children to watch blaspheming shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, or South Park. Baptists put all their vices into their casseroles (that's why they taste so good).

Through my education, I have become an economic liberal. I want to be a teacher, so it saddens me to see No Child Left Behind backfiring. It was a good idea in theory, but now many teachers are leaving their profession simply because it's not worth putting up with the pressure of preparing kids to deal with standardized tests. You know what? Standardized tests a life do not make. There's more to education than just grades. Grades and tests only function as indicators of success. Basing federal funding is insisting too much on instant results. It's like major league baseball (Bush was once owned part of a MLB team, after all). Major League Baseball has a 162 game season (it's a looooong season, often boring to those who only casually follow baseball). Inevitably, there is some team like the Oakland Athletics who struggle at the start. Fans call for a general firing and lament that the owners do not spend enough. But then by season's end Oakland has righted the ship and the general manager, Billy Beane of Moneyball fame, looks like a genius. Oakland did not throw more money at the problem...they took their lumps developing inexperienced players and fielded a competitive team. Right now, No Child Left Behind is like the Yankees throwing a bunch of money on a Randy Johnson and losing anyways because they're overspending on everything.

Welfare is another subject where I am liberal on. I think most conservatives hate giving "free rides" to people. Why can't most people get a job instead of living off the state? Taxpayers' dollars could be going into more worthwhile projects. The example that I've always heard is one about a drug addict. Would you rather just give the addict a one hundred dollars or do you make him work for it? In both cases, there's a good chance the addict finds a way to get his drugs but at least in the latter you make him a productive member of society. But there are just too many fringe cases where it's not that clear cut. Plus, I believe one's health should be provided for by the state.

There's more to it than this, but I've been trying to limit myself to the point. I'm like most people in that I think your vote doesn't count (hence the icon). The Democrats and Republicans are so entrenched in the two party system that I don't foresee that being broken up until America loses a major war. Also notice that my definitions may not be what most people think of conservative or liberal. That's because I believe both terms have been hijacked from their true meaning. I do know that I am a social conservative and economic liberal, however.

Try to tell me that I am wrong.

Comments

[joxn.livejournal.com]

The Democrats and Republicans are so entrenched in the two party system that I don't foresee that being broken up until America loses a major war.

Well, at least by voting for Bush you've advanced that goal.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I'm crazy like a fox...or a bat.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

I'd like to see an entry on your thoughts on taxation. Particularly I'd like your perspective on individual, corporate, income, and sales/use taxes.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Taxation? You know, the fact that I'm not even sure what the difference between individual, corporate, income, and sales/use taxes are is a good indication I'm probably not qualified to talk about it. I'll try to do some research on it and make it an article next semester for my school newspaper, perhaps around the Ides of March if you know what I mean.

I mean I support progressive taxes more than I do regressive taxes. But Arkansawyers are stupid and think they pay more in property taxes than they do in sales taxes. Wrong...you just see the property tax once a year while you're being nickeled and dimed with every purchase.

But since you were the one who bought me my paid account, I will do the research on it. But don't expect it for a ocuple of months. And you may have to remind me about it every once in awhile.

[wdomburg.livejournal.com]

Funny. You're one of the few other people I've seen openly admit to voting for Bush (not to mention describing yourself as a moderate Republican) and you break the opposite direction from me on both the major political axes. :)

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Then can I assume you're a moderate Democrat who voted for Kerry?

[wdomburg.livejournal.com]

I usually refer to myself as "center right", "moderate republican" or "libertarian republican" these days. In my case, though, I'm a social liberal but economic conservative.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

So...you're a libertarian Republican who voted for Kerry?

[genuinechris.livejournal.com]

I voted libertarian. Low government.

[wdomburg.livejournal.com]

I'd consider voting Libertarian again, if they'd run aa credible candidate. My vote doesn't go to the person I like the most, or the one I agree with the most; it goes to the person I think is best to do the job.

Someone who lists as their policital qualifications a failed bid for house of representatives and executive vice president of their college dorm? Not qualified to be president, no matter what his ideals.

[wdomburg.livejournal.com]

God no. Bush has his faults, but Kerry struck me as a crass opportunist and chronic panderer.

I thought people were surprised I voted for Bush. That's nothing compared to telling them now that I don't see "the errors of my ways." :)

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I thought people were surprised I voted for Bush. That's nothing compared to telling them now that I don't see "the errors of my ways."
Comment I get a lot:
"How did someone as smart as you vote for Bush?"

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

saddens me to see No Child Left Behind backfiring.... Grades and tests only function as indicators of success.

No Child Left Behind was doomed from the get-go. Grades and tests are only indicators of success in teaching to the test. Really fixing education would require a lot more guts than people are willing to put into it: requiring real discipline and completion of work, tolerating no crap from students, expecting responsibility on the part or parents. Education suffered first from a liberal layer of "the state is the parent and we must therefore take over teaching everything and guarantee little Johnny's self-esteem" followed by a conservative layer of "my god, their failing, so let's make up tests for them to teach to." It needs tearing back down to the roots, and no one's got the guts to do it.

But there are just too many fringe cases where it's not that clear cut. Plus, I believe one's health should be provided for by the state.

Bad writing. You discuss the arguments of others, then just make a statement and go on.

I also note that you talk about "how you was raised," but do not state your own feelings on Harry Potter, the Simpsons, or alternative lifestyles. From other things I've read, I suspect you are more of a social moderate than conservative.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

It needs tearing back down to the roots, and no one's got the guts to do it.
I think we also have the ironic situation of the people who might have the guys to do fix the system are far from being put in a position to do so.

Bad writing. You discuss the arguments of others, then just make a statement and go on.
Yeah...I need to start breaking my two page limit to explain things better.

I also note that you talk about "how you was raised," but do not state your own feelings on Harry Potter, the Simpsons, or alternative lifestyles. From other things I've read, I suspect you are more of a social moderate than conservative.
To be completely honest, I'm probably close to a social and economic moderate. However, in our two party system, you often get diametrically opposed choices. Apparently, being pro-life, for capital punishment, and in support of banning gay marriage makes me a social conservative.

But I'm still going to watch my Simpsons and Family Guy, Southern Baptist Convention be danged. ;)

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

No, you don't have to break your two-page limit. You need to focus your arguments and not try to fit a huge topic under one umbrella.

And you are not alone in being a mix of pros and antis. A lot of people are.

[samroswell.livejournal.com]

With respect to your "economic liberalism" (generally means a preference for state controlled economies, approaching fascism, socialism, or communism, not classically liberal practices despite vulgar parlance), what place do you see for Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution? Do you ignore X and impose your views here top-down (common practice throughout U.S. history), or do you prefer to work within your state/community, and allow your neighbors to decide their own economic fates? Or something else?

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Before I answer your question, answer mine first, please. I am curious to know who reads my journal. I have no idea who you are. How do you know me, and why did you friend me?

[samroswell.livejournal.com]

1. Literally, "How do you know x?" is question that neurologists, psychologists, logicians and AI researchers are still arguing about. Answering the question I think you're asking: I've seen you around, possibly had class with you some time in the past (or maybe just with one or more of your friends) and have read a few of your entries here (and possibly other opinions written by you).

2. Caught a comment of yours elsewhere, checked your journal out and decided that you appear to occasionally ask interesting questions, state interesting beliefs (not all of which I disagree with), and are occasionally an interesting read (when you're not being decisively long and boring).

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

1. I did write in the Collegian last year.
2. Makes sense.

Amendment X is that good loophole for the Supreme Court to use when it wants to check federal power. Its main problem is how to decide between one state banning something and another state allowing something. Which one wins? The answer has usually been purposelfully ambiguous from the highest court in our land. It always helps to leave wiggle room.

My personal preference would be to work within my own state, though there are plenty of times when assistance would be required.

[jeremyarc7.livejournal.com]

Populism. You're a populist. There's nothing wrong with that.

Now, you've been complaining about the two-party system. There's nothing wrong with that system. You know why? Because its less stratified than people think. The Democratic Party isn't some liberal-only party. It's full of conservatives, moderates and populists. The Democrats can't do anything in the House without help from the Blue Dogs (the thirty conservative Democrats in the House). John Murtha, a prominent Democrat, is a staunch populist (and one of my favorite Dems). Tim Roemer, another social conservative, economic liberal, was a strong contender for the DNC chair before finally ceding to Howard Dean (I wish he had won though).

The thing is that your vote does count (especially in non-presidential elections). In a two -party system, government reform has to come from within the major parties, not through minority parties. When the farmers of the Midwest and South felt they were getting screwed by the Democratic and Republican Parties, they formed the Populist Party. That party failed because a third party can't take the lead. So the farmers tried something else. Farmers in the Hill Country of Alabama voted Republican at a time when Democrats controlled the South. Why? Because those Republican candidates were nothing like Lincoln's GOP. They were simply the populist candidates dressed like elephants. The same thing happened in the Midwest. Other farmers voted for populists dressed as donkeys. By 1922, those Republican populists in the South had been replaced by Democratic populists. The result? The New Deal. Social conservatism, economic liberalism. That's how two-party politics work. When the economic conservatives and the social conservatives decided they wanted a social conservative, economic conservative party, they targeted the GOP and elected such candidates. It's not a completely thorough job (as the Dixiecrats took a while to be kicked out and there's still people like liberal Lincoln Chafee still around as a GOP senator and GOP interest groups like Log Cabin Republicans (which had considerable influence on Reagan). That's how it works. You reform a major party.

You call yourself a social conservative, economic liberal. There's candidates out there that share the same position. Vote for them. Do campaign work for them. Donate money to their campaign. Do grassroots work. Just talk to people about how great they would be. Help elect a social conservative, economic liberal and he or she will then help to elect other politicians with similar stances. Elect a dozen of them in the House and you can begin to assert influence. Get one in the Senate and you can really begin to assert influence (as maverick senators like John McCain, Zell Miller and Chuck Hagel [Noreen just thought I had typed Chuck Norris haha] can push their own agendas faster than their parties can). Get thirty House members like you and you have a coalition like the Blue Dogs. Get fifty and you're beginning to control the party. That's how it works. Your vote is vital to that. It's why I think congressional elections are more important than presidential ones. If your vote keeps the neocons from taking over the party, then they can't push a Bush instead of that economic liberal you want.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Guess I should start speaking softly and carry a big stick.