[Eupraxias]

I disagree. I have a good friend who is conservative about application of government (a 'fiscal conservative'), and very socially progressive. She is a registered Republican, and considers herself a "conservative".

While she is actively dedicated to social progress, (supports gay marriage, believes in the right to abortion, etc.), she feels we will be most successful at achieving this goal with leadership who prioritize fiscal conservativism.

I suspect that many Republicans are in this camp.

[jltsiren]

American political terminology is often weird because of the two-party system. It's better to consider the conservative – progressive, (economic) left – right, and collectivist – liberal (or libertarian) three independent axes. The position you describe would then be progressive right liberal.

[nineplay]

How's that working out for her? If she has a functioning uterus than I hope she has backup plan for what to do when the government dictates her gynecological care.

> I suspect that many Republicans are in this camp.

They are delusional. At this point thinking that "fiscal conservativism" is coming anytime soon is about as rational as believing that the rapture is right around the corner. They should open their eyes and see what is actually happening in their country right now, not keep praying in front of the photo of Ronald Reagan in their personal shrine.

[dragontamer]

What is her position on the Trump tax cuts? Bush's wall Street bailout / TARP? The trillions of COVID-19 aid passed by Trump?

Anyone who is actually a fiscal conservative knows that the concept is completely dead today.

[Agamus]

If I have it right, she feels a great deal of frustration and betrayal. But apparently not enough to give up hope that her idea is the best course to achieve progress for society.

[dragontamer]

But all the true fiscal conservatives have basically been kicked out of the Republican party.

Liz Cheney for speaking out against Trump. Paul Ryan for compromising too much. Jon Huntsman for having adopted Chinese kids.

I too am a fiscal conservative who largely identifies as Republican. Alas, it's very hard for me to say that today's Republicans represent me. No one actually tries to balance the budget and it's all about incredible social wars that kind of doesn't matter. (Like complaining about the number of lesbians in modern cartoons or whatever).

The fiscal conservatives that speak up fail the Republican purity test and are consistently kicked out. Literally all of them.

The few remaining fiscal conservatives have converted into cult of Trump, like Graham, to keep their voters placated.

[cjbgkagh]

Wouldn't Rand Paul count as a fiscal conservatives who hasn't been kicked out? And how is Liz Cheney a fiscal conservative? Granted that I don't know enough about US politics to be sure - but isn't Dick Cheney super corrupt. I'm not sure if fiscal conservativism counts if the government is saving money on social programs so they could send it to Halliburton instead.

It's impossible to ask one side to balance the budget without punishing the other side for not balancing the budget. The voters just don't care. The connection between poor policies and their consequences are so drawn out that they've practically been severed.

[dragontamer]

> Wouldn't Rand Paul count as a fiscal conservatives who hasn't been kicked out?

Rand Paul is more of an isolationist libertarian. America First was really his slogans, before Trump made it cool. Alas, its becoming more obvious that he's a stooge for the Russians these days.

> It's impossible to ask one side to balance the budget without punishing the other side for not balancing the budget.

Name one time under Republican rule that the budget became more balanced. It literally has never happened in our lifetimes.

Regan cut taxes and raised the deficit. Bush cut taxes and raised the deficit. Trump cut taxes and raised the deficit. They're the party of tax cuts, not of fiscal responsibility.

Fiscal Conservatism is just a talking point for Republicans. Actually, it ain't even a talking point anymore. There's nothing fiscally conservative about "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it", complaining about gay people on TV, or anything going on with Dilbert (bringing us back to topic).

Dilbert, the comic strip, is simply a reflection of today's conservative sphere. Republicans want a culture war, that's their #1 focus.

[cjbgkagh]

I just thought your list of fiscal conservatives to be quite odd. And isolationist would be more fiscally conservative when compared to the expense of running a world empire.

I'm not here defending Republicans, I consider both parties to be controlled by big businesses.

My point is the electorate isn't going to vote for proper fiscal conservatives so it's a bit ridiculous to expect politicians to be fiscal conservatives. Maybe if the US dollar loses the reserve status and the connection between policy and consequence tightens then maybe after an economic disaster the public may want fiscal conservatism.

[eropple]

> Wouldn't Rand Paul count as a fiscal conservatives who hasn't been kicked out?

Rand Paul happily soaks up district money while performatively voting against things that help other people and in 2021 signed onto a deal to hand Israel a bunch of money for Iron Dome. If he's a "fiscal conservative", I am the Queen of France.

[mbg721]

Rand certainly isn't Ron, but, like the rest of the country, he's in a situation where voters have to choose between 2+2=4.75 and 2+2=purple.

[Eupraxias]

Yes, and do you see how roughly the same thing can be said about the Democrat party, in that most people have a hard time identifying with either party? At the end of the day, people flip to 1 or 0.

Would it be far from the truth to say that we've just been through two election cycles in which Republicans who voted for Trump probably didn't "support" Trump, and Democrats who voted for Clinton or Biden probably didn't "support" either?

[swivelmaster]

That is, quite frankly, an insane position.

[funcDropShadow]

How do you come to that conclusion? The field of politics has to find answers for many different question: e.g. fiscal conservatism vs. more debt-based spending, gay-marriage vs. no gay-marriage. Why do you consider it insane to agree with one party on one topic and with another party on another topic? Requiring full commitment to one true party line seems to be the insane position to me.

[swivelmaster]

Two reasons.

First, supporting the Republican party for fiscal reasons necessarily means that you're supporting their social positions as well. To paraphrase the old line, what do you call someone who only voted for the Nazis because they supported their economic policies? A Nazi.

In other words, the social policies of a party, especially insofar as they affect the repression of minority groups, a permanent and undeniable stain upon any degree of economic progress that they may also create through their policies.

To put it yet another, more personal way: If you were in a group that the Republicans have targeted with hateful rhetoric or legislation in the last 20 years (gay, trans, Muslim, Latino, etc.), would you forgive me for voting for them if I rationalized it by saying "Well, I think their policies are better for the economy. Sorry that you can't get married / are facing discrimination in your daily life. Thoughts and prayers!"

Second, the data does not support the theory that Republicans are better for the economy. Under Republicans, GDP on average does far worse, recessions are more likely, employment goes down, debt and deficit go up... by just about any metric, they are simply not very good at governing the economy.

So if someone says they vote for Republicans for economic reasons, it's because they like the Republican lines on 'lower taxes' and 'personal responsibility' at a dogmatic level, not because they've done any kind of thoughtful analysis.