Althouse: "29% Are Conservative on Fiscal and Social Issues, 10% Liberal on Both."

July 16, 2011

"29% Are Conservative on Fiscal and Social Issues, 10% Liberal on Both."

Rasmussen.

37 comments:

Cindy Martin said...: If the GOP gets someone too socially conservative, they will turn away the independents. Let's stick with economic issues and drop the social issues.; 7/16/11, 11:07 PM
Joanna said...: I've heard people boast about being socially liberal/conservative. I've heard people identify with the label "fiscal conservative". I'm trying to remember a single time when I've heard a person, ad, column, talking head, etc. use the term "fiscal liberal" in a positive way or as a badge of honor. Thus far, I've got nuttin'.

I find it interesting that this poll shows only 10% who are liberal-liberal. What about all of the polls that supposedly show bajillions who want increased taxes? Does that mean that 90% are socially conservative?

"Everyone thinks they have good taste and a sense of humor, but they can't all possibly have both."

I wonder how many people who actually are fiscally liberal also identify as fiscally liberal.; 7/16/11, 11:27 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Google must have sold off Blogger! It's been surgically removed from this site. New method? After I go to "post" ... I'll get another screen that says "I only previewed."

At least Google knows why it does stuff for economic reasons. The stupid party? Well, they're like a DJ ... And, they've got to supply the songs some people want to hear.

It's not the way to gain popularity.

What the GOP has? It's a dead horse. But it is standing. The democraps are losing their legs ... and all they can do is roll and crawl. And, they can still beat the pants off the republicans.

What holds the repubilcans back? Families. Bush's. Romney's. Taft's. All the "old school."

And, even if you see Michele Bachmann's name ... that's just a trick. Karl Rove manipulates the lamestream ... trying to knock out Palin. And, hoping he can send Jeb out, too.

There's nothing we can do, ya know? It's like expecting a lawyer to know how to remove an appendix. While all he's trained to do is sue after the doctor does it.

Gee, from the Post A Comment note, it seems I could get caught in the spam filter. Surely, you joke.; 7/17/11, 12:01 AM
blake said...: Althouse is messing with the template? Or is the move underway?; 7/17/11, 12:04 AM
rcocean said...: "If the GOP gets someone too socially conservative, they will turn away the independents. Let's stick with economic issues and drop the social issues."

Yep, that's what they said in 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2008. Actually "they" say that every 4 years. When the GOP listens, they lose, when they ignore it, they win.; 7/17/11, 12:21 AM
rcocean said...: The people who usually say it are liberals on social issues. He's my suggestion. Want to win GOP, nominate someone conservative on social issues and moderate on economic ones. That's mainstream America - except on the internet.; 7/17/11, 12:23 AM
Revenant said...: The poll doesn't define what "conservative", "moderate", and "liberal" mean. So the poll's basically useless; it just tells you what subjective labels people apply to themselves, not what the people actually believe.; 7/17/11, 12:30 AM
Revenant said...: Yep, that's what they said in 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2008. Actually "they" say that every 4 years. When the GOP listens, they lose, when they ignore it, they win.

What a crock of shit.; 7/17/11, 12:32 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Revenant,

What a crock of shit.

Bullshit. Gerald Ford - loser. George H.W. Bush - loser. Bob Dole - loser. John McCain - loser.

Run a real conservative and we win.; 7/17/11, 1:29 AM
Revenant said...: Crack, sure, those guys were losers.

Any every last one of them was more conservative socially than he was economically. The notion that people like John McCain, Bob Dole, and George H. W. Bush were somehow economic conservatives who were soft on social issues is something only a true imbecile could believe.

In fact, the last time the Republican Party nominated a guy who cared more about economic issues than social ones was probably 1924.; 7/17/11, 2:34 AM
Revenant said...: In fact, since Reagan left office the Republican Party's mantra has been "feel free to shit all over the idea of small government and fiscal responsibility so long as you keep pounding that Bible".; 7/17/11, 2:36 AM
Freder Frederson said...: I'm trying to remember a single time when I've heard a person, ad, column, talking head, etc. use the term "fiscal liberal" in a positive way or as a badge of honor. Thus far, I've got nuttin'.

You must live a very sheltered life. A lot of people are fiscally liberal and proud of it. Maybe they confuse you because you are not very bright and don't realize that believing in Keynesian economic policy is pretty much the definition of being "fiscally liberal"; 7/17/11, 3:54 AM
Erik Robert Nelson said...: I have to agree with Revenant here, at least in part. Past Republican presidential candidates, at least, have been more willing to give lip service to social conservative items than commit with any consistency to economic conservatism. That's been true of every Republican candidate for president since Ronald Reagan. Reagan taught the party how to win and be successful, and despite laying claim to Reagan's legacy, none of them have actually internalized that lesson.; 7/17/11, 5:06 AM
edutcher said...: The real import of the poll, which must scare the Lefties, fiscal, social, or otherwise, is that they're outnumbered 3 to 1, not 2 to 1 as was figured before.

Freder Frederson said...

I'm trying to remember a single time when I've heard a person, ad, column, talking head, etc. use the term "fiscal liberal" in a positive way or as a badge of honor. Thus far, I've got nuttin'.

You must live a very sheltered life. A lot of people are fiscally liberal and proud of it. Maybe they confuse you because you are not very bright and don't realize that believing in Keynesian economic policy is pretty much the definition of being "fiscally liberal"

These are the people that went from academia to work in DC in '09 and have since returned to their ivory towers in disgrace.

Joanna's bright enough to see this.

Freder/Montaigne/Alpha, not so.

Revenant said...

Crack, sure, those guys were losers.

Any every last one of them was more conservative socially than he was economically. The notion that people like John McCain, Bob Dole, and George H. W. Bush were somehow economic conservatives who were soft on social issues is something only a true imbecile could believe.

If they were, it wasn't much in evidence.

PS What Crack said.; 7/17/11, 5:11 AM
edutcher said...: PPS As an example, consider the fact that McCain's Conservative chops, fiscal as well as military, are pretty well established.

It's socially - think amnesty - where he feels compelled to reach across the aisle to his friends in the Democrat Party.; 7/17/11, 5:34 AM
G Joubert said...: It's socially - think amnesty - where he feels compelled to reach across the aisle to his friends in the Democrat Party.

And don't forget the monstrosity known as McCain-Feingold. But you're right. McCain's fiscal conservative bona fides are nearly impeccable, something that always gets overlooked when he's discussed.

As an aside, I don't like this new blogger interface.; 7/17/11, 5:53 AM
Freder Frederson said...: Joanna's bright enough to see this.

Apparently not. Her claim was that she couldn't think of anyone who claimed to be fiscally liberal. Either she is living in a cave or she simply doesn't know what a fiscal liberal is.

As for your larger point that Keynesian economics has been thoroughly disgraced, where is your evidence? And while you are at it, explain how the current "cut the budget at all costs" is going to lead to job creation or help the economy in a time of 9% unemployment.; 7/17/11, 5:58 AM
Robert Cook said...: Revenant has it right: the poll is useless if it only asked people their responses to various labels without actually defining those labels. (The labels are essentially meaningless today, so distorted have they all become by misuse.)

As for whether voters support candidates for President according to how "liberal" or "conservative" or "moderate" the are perceived to be, I believe most voters just vote according to who they like as a person, who they would prefer to "sit and have a beer with," as was often said in regards to George W. Bush. I don't think most people really vote according to policy questions at all. Party affiliation certainly has something to do with voter choices among those who see themselves as "political," (a minority of American voters), but "likability" trumps all other considerations.; 7/17/11, 6:01 AM
Freder Frederson said...: And don't forget the monstrosity known as McCain-Feingold.

What does support McCain-Feingold (or opposition to it) violate conservatism. It is neither conservative or liberal to believe that special interests and the way campaigns are financed are deeply damaging to the political system of this country and want to do something about it.; 7/17/11, 6:02 AM
Michael said...: "It is neither conservative or liberal to believe that special interests and the way campaigns are financed are deeply damaging to the political system of this country and want to do something about it. "

How ridiculous. McCain-Feingold is a contraption, a liberal's dream of a way to suppress free speech in the name of "fairness."; 7/17/11, 6:28 AM
daddynoz said...: Mrs. Althouse,

I think it interesting that you posted reference as to the ideological humor of the American constituency. I have not heard of you go on record as to those conservatives that are particularly discomfited by abuse of the Constitution with regard to presidential eligibility, specifically as to Mr. Obama's parentage and the natural born citizen phrase. Some, like myself, believe that the Minor v Happersett case created binding precedent as to the eligibility phrase and leaves room for a national discussion distinct from the nonsense of birth certificates, social security numbers, and whatnot. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” What is truly remarkable is the fact the decision of determining Mrs. Minor's citizenship was made with Art II Sect 1 rather than an amendment put in place only 6 years previous.

1SG Nosworthy; 7/17/11, 7:01 AM
Curious George said...: Fiscal liberal? Hmmmm. Well, we have a "libertarian" that voted for Feingold hanging around here. So I suppose it is possible.; 7/17/11, 7:02 AM
Erik Robert Nelson said...: "As for your larger point that Keynesian economics has been thoroughly disgraced, where is your evidence?"

I don't know about "thoroughly," but "disgraced"? Certainly. It's hard to argue otherwise with the stimulus a complete failure. Just watching Krugman backtrack and sputter over the last year is evidence enough of that.; 7/17/11, 7:07 AM
KCFleming said...: Social and fiscal liberals often want something for nothing.

Free ponies, from the economy and their day to day lives.

Conservatives believe the two are intertwined, and tragically there are no free ponies.

Things do change, and often for the better, but not all such changes have been salutary. Single motherhood, for example, has led to the descent of the black inner cities into a feral state.

They are socially quite free, to be sure.; 7/17/11, 7:48 AM
KCFleming said...: Joanna is right, Freder, and you are wrong.

Keynesian spending is in fact fiscally liberal, but it is never identified as such anywhere.

It is instead merely prescribed as if obvious and a natural law, as if no other alternatives exist except [insert Hoover lie here].; 7/17/11, 7:52 AM
Brian Brown said...: As for your larger point that Keynesian economics has been thoroughly disgraced, where is your evidence?

*GIGGLE*

You can't really be serious...; 7/17/11, 8:26 AM
Brian Brown said...: And while you are at it, explain how the current "cut the budget at all costs" is going to lead to job creation or help the economy in a time of 9% unemployment.

Um, government spending crowds out private investment (capital).

Not complicated.; 7/17/11, 8:27 AM
Lincolntf said...: All of Keynesian economics rests on the myth of the "multiplier" effect. The massive gouts of money that have been poured into the Keynesian cauldron since 2008 have established once and for all that there is no multiplier effect, leaving Liberals with nothing left but the term itself.; 7/17/11, 8:29 AM
Paco Wové said...: "I'm trying to remember a single time when I've heard a person, ad, column, talking head, etc. use the term "fiscal liberal" in a positive way or as a badge of honor..."

"A lot of people are fiscally liberal and proud of it." (Childish insult follows)

Reading comprehension, Freder. Work on it.; 7/17/11, 8:31 AM
Hagar said...: "Keynesian economics" will not be shown to have failed until some government somewhere tries it, and it fails.

Keynes wrote about a lot, but what is meant by "Keynesian economics, is his recommendation that governments should tax to dampen the highs of boom times and use the cash to pay down the public debt, so that when the subsequent downturns came, it could borrow and use deficit spending to ease the severity of the busts.

What governments actually have been doing is using the boomtimes to spend on programs, and actually borrow to spend more, since they could afford to borrow and the good times were going to last forever. Then when the busts came, they already had a sky-high debt they could not afford to pay the interest on, but their solutions have been to borrow still more and hope that the good times would return tomorrow and bail them out.

This is grasshopper economics, there is nothing "Keynesian" about it.; 7/17/11, 8:58 AM
Calypso Facto said...: "I'm trying to remember a single time when I've heard a person, ad, column, talking head, etc. use the term "fiscal liberal" in a positive way or as a badge of honor."

No matter what the proudly carried protester signs at the Madison Capitol literally said, they all figuratively stated,

"I'm a fiscal liberal who endorses union coerced government overspending and perpetually increasing debt."

At least that was my understanding...; 7/17/11, 9:19 AM
paul a'barge said...: Barack Obama.Straight up. Who could have voted for the mutt?; 7/17/11, 9:43 AM
Phil 314 said...: Can someone please tell me how affirmative action is a "social" issue?; 7/17/11, 10:02 AM
rcocean said...: "Can someone please tell me how affirmative action is a "social" issue?"

Can someone please tell me why it isn't?; 7/17/11, 11:22 AM
Revenant said...: It's socially - think amnesty - where he feels compelled to reach across the aisle to his friends in the Democrat Party.

Illegal immigration is an economic issue, not a social issue. It is primarily about jobs, not morality.; 7/17/11, 6:33 PM
Revenant said...: George H. W. Bush: anti-gay, anti-atheist, anti-abortion. Increased taxes, spending, and government regulation. Lost to Clinton in 1992 for being a fuck-up on *economic* issues despite the overwhelming support of social conservatives.

Bob Dole: anti-gay, anti-abortion. Favored bans on affirmative action and flag-burning and laws mandating that schools allow praye. Pro death-penalty. No coherent economic views to speak of, aside from the usual "tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts" mantra.

John McCain: anti-gay, anti-abortion, in favor of internet censorship and flag-burning ban. Drug warrior. Big-government conservative on economic issues, favoring lots of government meddling and regulation. Pro-TARP.; 7/17/11, 6:48 PM
daddynoz said...: Revenant,

I would argue that illegal immigration is neither a social nor economic. It is moral in the framework of what is the law. Social and economic perspective lends to the horror of validating "final solutions" (i.e. minority populations subjugated merely for monetary or segregation value).

The law states requirement for securing the borders and illegal breach of such is a crime punishable. Adherence to law is a reflection of morality in the frame of integrity. Unfortunately, many in Washington are utterly lost when it comes to this concept.; 7/18/11, 12:26 AM