it’s not incomplete, it’s dumb. the idea of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” is a complete fantasy. right wing is authoritarian by nature, and left wing is “libertarian” by nature.
(I’m using lowercase l “libertarian” in a very generic sense, not in the american libertarian “let’s get rid of the age of consent” sense.)
yeah but that just doesn’t work. fiscally conservative policies inevitably result in inequalities and preserve a hierarchical structure that keeps conservative norms intact.
tbf liberalism is still a right wing position so i shouldn’t say the term is entirely inaccurate, but it’s generally used in the aforementioned lowercase-l libertarian sense, as if someone can be fiscally “right wing” (preserving inequality) and socially “left wing” (promoting equality). that simply cannot be achieved. you cannot achieve equality by preserving inequality.
I want commenting on its efficacy. I’m just saying that it happens. Most economic conservatives these days come with a side order of rights oppression: reproductive, gender expression, migrants, etc. Starmer, while being fiscally conservative in that he isn’t going to introduce a programme of economic redistribution, is socially liberal in that he’s pushing back the former government’s “culture war” actions.
it’s not incomplete, it’s dumb. the idea of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” is a complete fantasy. right wing is authoritarian by nature, and left wing is “libertarian” by nature.
(I’m using lowercase l “libertarian” in a very generic sense, not in the american libertarian “let’s get rid of the age of consent” sense.)
I think Kier Starmer is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
yeah but that just doesn’t work. fiscally conservative policies inevitably result in inequalities and preserve a hierarchical structure that keeps conservative norms intact.
tbf liberalism is still a right wing position so i shouldn’t say the term is entirely inaccurate, but it’s generally used in the aforementioned lowercase-l libertarian sense, as if someone can be fiscally “right wing” (preserving inequality) and socially “left wing” (promoting equality). that simply cannot be achieved. you cannot achieve equality by preserving inequality.
I want commenting on its efficacy. I’m just saying that it happens. Most economic conservatives these days come with a side order of rights oppression: reproductive, gender expression, migrants, etc. Starmer, while being fiscally conservative in that he isn’t going to introduce a programme of economic redistribution, is socially liberal in that he’s pushing back the former government’s “culture war” actions.