Why Being Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal is a Farce

Great Article from Mark Steyn on Arnold Schwarzenegger called Governor Gravid in the March 9 issue of National Review. He shows how one can’t be fiscally conservative and socially liberal (I myself never understood how these two worked together given the fiscal pulls of one on the other):

The problem with being socially liberal, fiscally conservative is that most of the social liberalism comes with quite a price tag just have a ten-minute riffle through the non-stimulus bill. We all want to move beyond the standard left/right paradigm, as Arianna liked to say in that gubernatorial
race. If I had a pair o dime for every time a politician has said we need to move beyond the old paradigm, I could afford to live in Arnolds California. But the reality is that almost every socially liberal, fiscally conservative politician turns out to be fiscally liberal in the same way that, if you mix half a pint of vanilla ice cream with half a pint of horse manure, its not hard to figure which taste will predominate.

To be fair to Ahnuld, a lot of voters want it both ways, too. Which is why fiscal is not a useful word in this context. Big Government is not primarily a fiscal issue: These programs are not wrong because they’re unaffordable; they’re unaffordable because they’re wrong they’re not the proper role of government, and if you pretend they are, then, as in California, you unbalance the relationship between the citizen and the state. But its not a green-eyeshade thing: They would be just as wrong, as I said a month or two back, if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them every month. So when a politician tells you hes fiscally conservative, its like Conan the Barbarian announcing hell bring his abacus to a sword fight.