POTUS 46.10: A New Hope

[unofan]

Someone on here convinced me it's impossible to be socially liberal and economically conservative.

That's essentially a Blue Dog Dem or a Rockefeller Republican. They used to exist at the national level. But the GOP embraced the religious right and anti- taxation as a mandate (and gerrymandering removed most competitive seats that centrists could win) and here we are.

I will vote Dem for the foreseeable future because the GOP is full derp on every issue. But that doesn't mean I'm on board with the AOC or Bernie wings of the party. It means I recognize it's better than the current alternative.

There are things the GOP could do to win me back. They won't, but in theory they could.

 

[busterman62]

That's essentially a Blue Dog Dem or a Rockefeller Republican. They used to exist at the national level. But the GOP embraced the religious right and anti- taxation as a mandate (and gerrymandering removed most competitive seats that centrists could win) and here we are.

I will vote Dem for the foreseeable future because the GOP is full derp on every issue. But that doesn't mean I'm on board with the AOC or Bernie wings of the party. It means I recognize it's better than the current alternative.

There are things the GOP could do to win me back. They won't, but in theory they could.

Agree 100%.

 

[dxmnkd316]

I think the argument that convinced me eas that if you're going to be a socially liberal, you need to have policies that align with that. Or at least don't undermine them. Which is what fiscally conservative policies do. They aren't just incongruent with social liberalism but they actively undermine them.

You can't support equity and inclusion while cutting programs given the brutal history this country has with racial and gender politics. That's just pulling up the ladder when you've reached the top.

I just don't think a person can actually be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They can claim it, but it doesn't make it true. More likely they're fiscal conservatives who just don't care either way on the social values. Which isn't a socially liberal platform.

If you choose to be a fiscal conservative, you can't be a social liberal. Oddly enough, you can be a social conservative and an economic liberal. But I'm sure we all know where that ends.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

That was the gist of what I remember.

im sure these people exist, I personally don’t know any. The people I know who call themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative don’t give a shit about others, don’t do anything to help marginalized people, and worst of all, don’t even seem to vote or if they do, vote for republicans thinking they’ll just lower their taxes. They’re just not facist christian fundies so they seem to view themselves as socially liberal

 

[Kepler]

I think the argument that convinced me eas that if you're going to be a socially liberal, you need to have policies that align with that. Or at least don't undermine them. Which is what fiscally conservative policies do. They aren't just incongruent with social liberalism but they actively undermine them.

You can't support equity and inclusion while cutting programs given the brutal history this country has with racial and gender politics. That's just pulling up the ladder when you've reached the top.

I just don't think a person can actually be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They can claim it, but it doesn't make it true. More likely they're fiscal conservatives who just don't care either way on the social values. Which isn't a socially liberal platform.

If you choose to be a fiscal conservative, you can't be a social liberal. Oddly enough, you can be a social conservative and an economic liberal. But I'm sure we all know where that ends.

This 100%.

 

[Swansong]

Yeah I think that was the kind of logical calculus I went through, in addition to seeing nothing but obvious disingenuity from people I thought I shared common cause with.

It would be one thing if there wasn't an entire political party dedicated to erasing LGBTQ people, forcing their religion on everyone. and on and on. But ... we live in this universe, and we do have this political party.

 

[Drew S.]

I think the argument that convinced me eas that if you're going to be a socially liberal, you need to have policies that align with that. Or at least don't undermine them. Which is what fiscally conservative policies do. They aren't just incongruent with social liberalism but they actively undermine them.

You can't support equity and inclusion while cutting programs given the brutal history this country has with racial and gender politics. That's just pulling up the ladder when you've reached the top.

I just don't think a person can actually be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They can claim it, but it doesn't make it true. More likely they're fiscal conservatives who just don't care either way on the social values. Which isn't a socially liberal platform.

If you choose to be a fiscal conservative, you can't be a social liberal. Oddly enough, you can be a social conservative and an economic liberal. But I'm sure we all know where that ends.

I think a lot of it comes down to how you define both. To me being socially liberal means giving people the freedom to do what they want to do and be who they want to be(as long as it doesn’t infringe on others.) True fiscal conservatism is a balanced(not necessarily bare bones) budget and saving money for a rainy day.

 

[Kepler]

That was the gist of what I remember.

im sure these people exist, I personally don’t know any. The people I know who call themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative don’t give a **** about others, don’t do anything to help marginalized people, and worst of all, don’t even seem to vote or if they do, vote for republicans thinking they’ll just lower their taxes. They’re just not facist christian fundies so they seem to view themselves as socially liberal

There were three groups who claimed to be economically conservative and socially liberal:

Rockefeller Republicans: genocided by the Reagan-Thatcher conservatives. Jack Kemp was the last one. Jack Kemp left elected office in 1989. There has not been a credible Rockefeller Republican or a "Republican with a Human Face" since then. Those who claim it since then are simply lying.

Deluded Libertarians: convinced themselves they believed in non-coercion and didn't care what color or gender you were. But completely missed the whole point that systemic bigotry and for that matter capitalism warps society, laws, and even their fetish the market itself. Driven from the big L Libertarian party when it was taken over by the Kochs. Only STEM undergrads still believe in this.

New York Times Democrats: believed in aggressively combating sexism and racism as long as they themselves were not even slightly inconvenienced by it. My parents, Clintonistas, and people who think the Rockefeller Republicans "had some good ideas." Total saps, either because they are ignorant of the fundamental tie between social progress and aggressive economic redistribution, or willfully in denial that to stop social evils we must in large part rethink predatory capitalism. The most numerous and worst of the three groups.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Yeah I think that was the kind of logical calculus I went through, in addition to seeing nothing but obvious disingenuity from people I thought I shared common cause with.

It would be one thing if there wasn't an entire political party dedicated to erasing LGBTQ people, forcing their religion on everyone. and on and on. But ... we live in this universe, and we do have this political party.

This is exactly what I went through as well. Back in college I had a lesbian friend as me if she was a bad person because of her sexuality. That still haunts me. If the gop platform could cause that kind of harm, what else did they get wrong?

that was the fissure and started to open. Then came denial of science. Several iterations later were at outright fascism.

 

[Handyman]

That was the gist of what I remember.

im sure these people exist, I personally don’t know any. The people I know who call themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative don’t give a **** about others, don’t do anything to help marginalized people, and worst of all, don’t even seem to vote or if they do, vote for republicans thinking they’ll just lower their taxes. They’re just not facist christian fundies so they seem to view themselves as socially liberal

We have a friend who definitely is one.

 

[Handyman]

I think the argument that convinced me eas that if you're going to be a socially liberal, you need to have policies that align with that. Or at least don't undermine them. Which is what fiscally conservative policies do. They aren't just incongruent with social liberalism but they actively undermine them.

You can't support equity and inclusion while cutting programs given the brutal history this country has with racial and gender politics. That's just pulling up the ladder when you've reached the top.

I just don't think a person can actually be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They can claim it, but it doesn't make it true. More likely they're fiscal conservatives who just don't care either way on the social values. Which isn't a socially liberal platform.

If you choose to be a fiscal conservative, you can't be a social liberal. Oddly enough, you can be a social conservative and an economic liberal. But I'm sure we all know where that ends.

So how do you square that there are in fact Gay conservatives? Not self haters, not people in denial or in the closet 100% honest Gay men and Lesbians who vote Republican purely on fiscal grounds.

See the problem with your analysis is that you assume people who are economically conservative are going to cut social programs. While that is obviously the GOP platform who is to say that every conservative is a GOPer at this point and agrees with their agenda? Being fiscally conservative could mean cutting the military budget to balance the budget. That would not interfere with any socially liberal agenda while still being economically conservative.

Again, the more you ignore the nuance of the argument the more you lose the forest in the trees.

My GFs uncle is one of the top surgeons in Illinois. Military, undergrad at Kentucky, Med school at Duke. Born and bred Republican because he is a wealthy d-bag with a silver spoon up his butt. He has 100% disavowed the GOP and voted Dem in 2020 and will continue to. Nothing about who he is or what he believes would tell you that is how he would shift after 2016 but he didn't hesitate. According to most analysis (and people who over hype scatterplots) he is not an attainable voter yet there it is. We dont live in a graph, people have conflicting beliefs all the time and are able to deal with it.

Little l libertarians are pretty much what we are talking about. And while some pretend they dont exist they do and they are the exactly why the GOP is having the problems they are.

 

[Kepler]

This is exactly what I went through as well. Back in college I had a lesbian friend as me if she was a bad person because of her sexuality. That still haunts me. If the gop platform could cause that kind of harm, what else did they get wrong?

that was the fissure and started to open. Then came denial of science. Several iterations later were at outright fascism.

That's conservative Christianity, not the Republicans. The Republicans just used those suckers (and white racists in the North) to despoil the middle class for the rich.

Now the cynical rich Republicans like the Bush and Taft family have lost control of the party to the morons they used, and the leopards are eating the wrong faces.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

We have a friend who definitely is one.

Def not a friend anymore as I literally don’t even know who you are talking about

the line can sometimes be thin with libertarian assholes

 

[dxmnkd316]

That's conservative Christianity, not the Republicans.

Potato potahto

 

[dxmnkd316]

So how do you square that there are in fact Gay conservatives? Not self haters, not people in denial or in the closet 100% honest Gay men and Lesbians who vote Republican purely on fiscal grounds.

See the problem with your analysis is that you assume people who are economically conservative are going to cut social programs. While that is obviously the GOP platform who is to say that every conservative is a GOPer at this point and agrees with their agenda? Being fiscally conservative could mean cutting the military budget to balance the budget. That would not interfere with any socially liberal agenda while still being economically conservative.

Again, the more you ignore the nuance of the argument the more you lose the forest in the trees.

My GFs uncle is one of the top surgeons in Illinois. Military, undergrad at Kentucky, Med school at Duke. Born and bred Republican because he is a wealthy d-bag with a silver spoon up his butt. He has 100% disavowed the GOP and voted Dem in 2020 and will continue to. Nothing about who he is or what he believes would tell you that is how he would shift after 2016 but he didn't hesitate. According to most analysis (and people who over hype scatterplots) he is not an attainable voter yet there it is. We dont live in a graph, people have conflicting beliefs all the time and are able to deal with it.

Little l libertarians are pretty much what we are talking about. And while some pretend they dont exist they do and they are the exactly why the GOP is having the problems they are.

They aren't confused they're just not social liberals. (Or true Scotsmen, I suppose.) They're social moderates. You can't enact fiscally conservative principles without socially illiberal effects. They necessarily negatively impact communities of color, lgbtq, poor, etc.

 

[dxmnkd316]

There were three groups who claimed to be economically conservative and socially liberal:

Rockefeller Republicans: genocided by the Reagan-Thatcher conservatives. Jack Kemp was the last one. Jack Kemp left elected office in 1989. There has not been a credible Rockefeller Republican or a "Republican with a Human Face" since then. Those who claim it since then are simply lying.

Deluded Libertarians: convinced themselves they believed in non-coercion and didn't care what color or gender you were. But completely missed the whole point that systemic bigotry and for that matter capitalism warps society, laws, and even their fetish the market itself. Driven from the big L Libertarian party when it was taken over by the Kochs. Only STEM undergrads still believe in this.

New York Times Democrats: believed in aggressively combating sexism and racism as long as they themselves were not even slightly inconvenienced by it. My parents, Clintonistas, and people who think the Rockefeller Republicans "had some good ideas." Total saps, either because they are ignorant of the fundamental tie between social progress and aggressive economic redistribution, or willfully in denial that to stop social evils we must in large part rethink predatory capitalism. The most numerous and worst of the three groups.

Bingo. I was a deluded libertarian for a while after college. As was my obligation as a cishet white STEM male. Slowly that juvenile thinking eroded away.

 

[rufus]

I think a lot of it comes down to how you define both. To me being socially liberal means giving people the freedom to do what they want to do and be who they want to be(as long as it doesn’t infringe on others.) True fiscal conservatism is a balanced(not necessarily bare bones) budget and saving money for a rainy day.

And you continue to vote for people who don't do either.

Why? Oh yeah, the gunz!!!!!!

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Don’t infringe on others lol! This is too good

 

[aparch]

Nerd Prom 2023 has started.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

When I see the COVID death toll of MAGAts ... can confirm.

We're in a war with the right. Every single MAGAt covid death is a clean kill and should have been, and continue to be, celebrated. Especially the ones that we're slow and painful and accompanied by dying gasps of "would it help now if I got vaccinated?" F uck 'em all.