“I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative.” It’s one of the most common phrases when it comes to politics, especially amongst college students. The statement is supposed to act as a moral quantifier, reflecting a hesitancy to admit that so-called economic prudence also means harming underprivileged people. In a nation where party politics define both social and fiscal policy, this mindset is perhaps seen as an alternative to the ingrained norm. In the United States, social policy is inherently tied to economic policy. However desirable a divergence might be, it is simply impossible to ever achieve.

Take, for instance, the belief that women deserve the right to an abortion. Someone cannot advocate for this socially liberal idea while simultaneously proposing a conservative fiscal policy. Funding Planned Parenthood, for example, is an inherently fiscally liberal policy. A true fiscal conservative should be against government spending of nearly every form, especially for programs such as Planned Parenthood, without direct economic returns. However, giving women the right to choose without Planned Parenthood is no different than a poll tax — letting anyone vote, provided that they can pay. Almost all socially liberal fiscal conservatives will support Planned Parenthood. But in doing so, they effectively renounce the fiscally conservative aspect of their identity.

Some of the other disparities between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism are less obvious but equally as important. Fiscal conservatives will say that they are against government regulation of the private sector. Yet, they fail to acknowledge how some of the most important social changes in American history came about as a result of increased regulation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, considered to be the most important civil rights legislation of the twentieth century, was first and foremost an act of regulation. The government desegregated both the public and private sectors, an act that fiscal conservatives should fundamentally oppose as government meddling in industry. The only reason people of all races are guaranteed the right to enter any store, restaurant or mall they desire is because of this fiscally liberal policy. Other liberal tools such as Pell Grants, which are disproportionately given to minorities, afford people of all backgrounds the opportunity to pursue college degrees. 

At a time when the government is seen as both an economic burden and a social facilitator, it is understandable that people should look for common ground. However, it should not be forgotten that almost all liberal social change in this country is attributable toward liberal fiscal policy. That is not to say that the government does not have an onus to become more efficient, as it absolutely does. Rather, its broader economic policy should closely mirror the desired social policies of the electorate.

Opinions expressed on the editorial pages are not necessarily those of WSN, and our publication of opinions is not an endorsement of them.

Email Max Schachere at [email protected].