From 2008-2022, I wrote quite a few answers on Quora. Over the coming months, I’ll be moving some of my most-upvoted answers over to my personal blog. Here’s one from 2017, nearly ten years ago.
Social Liberal
- With a few exceptions, I generally believe that the government shouldn’t get a say in what we do with our own personal lives, what speech we make or don’t make, whom we choose to love or marry, or what we choose to do with our own bodies, as long as we don’t victimize others.
So, on matters like gay marriage, pro-choice vs. abortion, the social liberal in me says that government has no right to legislate what we do in the privacy of our own homes and with our own bodies.
Yes, there are times when there is clear and compelling societal advantage (or cost) to social behavior (e.g., we can’t just murder people), and thus there are of course important laws that make sense in any civilized society.
But overall, put me down for essential freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights and Constitution: freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, right to privacy including pro-choice (though I do think abortion ought to be rare, as early as possible and relatively limited, because there’s the life inside that has rights too), and freedom of expression. And also put me down for legalization of low-grade crimes like marijuana, though I don’t use it myself. Getting the federal government focusing its (what should be) limited resources prosecuting important crimes is very compatible with fiscal conservatism. - I’m sorry, “progressive” left, but over the past two decades, in your march from liberalism to progressivism, you’ve lost the mantel of “owning” many socially liberal freedoms, at least from an overall brand perspective. You’re too busy silencing and engaging in identity politics, shaming, and name-calling to continue to lay moral claim that you’re the party of “social freedom”. No longer, until you get a handle on silencing, violent suppression of speech and assembly coming from within your most strident “progressive” side. You are not the party of social freedom anymore; you are the party of insular social dogma, shaming, and conformity.
- I commend liberals and conservatives alike to re-read The Federalist Papers and The United States Constitution — and hell, 1984, Animal Farm and The Crucible too. Liberty is a founding, central principle of America, and that includes social liberty.
Fiscal Conservative
The “fiscal conservative” in me believes strongly in limited and efficient federal government, and restoring much more state control and federalism.
Why fiscal conservatism? Well, in short, the federal government has more than enough revenue, and if properly run, could reduce its scope on the expense side, and need no increase for years. It’s doing too many things, and federal government isn’t always the best solution to problems.
For instance, how many of us truly halted our lives when the Sequester happened? Or shutdowns? Did people in America really notice? Did anyone who doesn’t work for the government? The pain should have been massive, in any efficiently run scenario. Instead, we had some symbolic closures of federal parks and monuments.
And for instance, where, specifically, did the $190 BILLION in extra federal dollars we shunted to public schools actually go, line by line? As Pro-Publica found out, not even the Department of Education even knows. And if the Department of Education doesn’t know, why should it exist?
Government expenses shouldn’t just always march inexorably higher. Zero based budgeting makes sense. It’s crazy that people consider a reduction in the rate of increase a “cut.” The momentum of programs, once started, needs an opposing force. That force is fiscal conservatism.
I care greatly about the prosperity and freedom of younger generations and those which will follow. The fiscal conservative in me finds it very alarming that the four wealthiest counties in the United States of America just “happen” to border Washington DC. I think that’s evidence that money in politics has gotten way out of hand, and that the federal government is way too involved in picking winners and losers. A key part of changing that is to limit the scope of government to things much closer to those activities the founders and Constitutional framers outlined. Likely more, but not so much more that it invites graft, greed and waste at the staggering scale that it currently does.
Please set aside 30 minutes and listen to “Money in Politics” from Planet Money: Inside Washington’s Money Machine There is simply too much money in federal politics.
I care about future generations perhaps even more than the present generation. Do you find that shocking? Well, if you care equally about each individual life, then you do too. There will be far more people to follow us in future generations than live in America today. And yet, with every dollar in government expense that exceeds its revenues, we are borrowing from future generations, at the cost of their likely prosperity. Yes, Sir Keynes, there are emergency times when it’s necessary to do so, but we seem to be always in “emergency mode”, even though — guess what — we’re not! We’re wasting billions of dollars in expenditures each year. That’s easy, found money — we just need the political courage to reduce waste, and to measure things the way, say you’d do in Google Analytics.
Since debt is a very likely limiter of this potential, I care very much about keeping government — particularly the federal government — limited and efficient. In the age of Google Analytics, it makes no sense to me that we have (by most estimates) at least $8 billion/year wasted on entitlement fraud alone (Medicare, Medicaid primarily.) And that’s just one slice of the pie, let alone the military, the executive branch overall, or any other area. It’s too freaking big, too laden with people and costs and waste.
I also believe strongly in means-testing government benefits, so that the wealthy among us (and I’m fortunate enough to consider myself in that group) do NOT benefit by things like Social Security, the home mortgage interest deduction, and other things that the wealthy should not get.
It is alarming to me that we are now $20 trillion in debt, which is roughly the size of our GDP. That’s double what it was just nine years ago. We escalate that debt at the risk of our future prosperity and relative power — it gives nations like China and other debtholders far too much leverage. Greece is a cautionary tale; let’s not let debt run too high relative to our GDP.
I also believe strongly in the Tenth Amendment, which essentially says that those powers not explicitly assigned to the federal government belong to the States. We seem to have gotten away from this principle.
So, I’m fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I’ve never registered with either the blue or the red team, even though I’ve voted for roughly as many D’s as R’s in my life.
I’m an issues-based voter, I follow the news closely, and the politics of each party has enough to both attract and also repel me, depending upon the issue at hand. I wouldn’t call myself fully libertarian, because I do think capitalism has several cases where sensible regulation is warranted, and I do believe in things like modest and smart foreign aid investments to allies.
Inconsistent? Nonsense.
There are some wankers who say “you just want everything for people, but you simply don’t want to pay for it.” To which I say hogwash.
The federal government isn’t always the right solution to our challenges.
How’d that War on Poverty go? Or the War on Drugs? How much does it cost to get the federal government out of people’s bedrooms? Is the quality of local public education really a function of how much money we throw at the federal Department of Education? Aren’t public schools funded by local property taxes, and locally run? Does being pro gay marriage cost the federal government anything? How? Does supporting sensible gun control and environmental policy cost anything enormous from federal taxpayers beyond making laws? Does thinking that the Little Sisters of the Poor shouldn’t be mandated to pay for something they find religiously objectionable cost federal taxpayers anything? Must caring about social programs only be about spending ever more (inputs) rather than prioritizing better outcomes?
As just one example, we have found that the much maligned-at-the-time welfare reform act in the 90’s actually had net positive results for many citizens, and it cost federal taxpayers far less.
It’s not always compassionate to throw dollars at a problem and create new programs. As any good parent knows, sometimes — not always, but sometimes — tough love works, and is the right plan of action.
Do we not have enough money, somewhere, in federal coffers, to reallocate? Must spending only go up? It’s a question of priorities, and what one believes the proper, Constitutional role of the federal government is. We have over $20,000,000,000,000 in debt. Adding to that debt is not a universal good.
There is over $8 billion in documented Medicare fraud per year alone, and over $1 billion in SNAP fraud. That seems eminently fixable, through digital measurement and enforcement. There are many things the federal government does that are not its role, and should be best left to the states. And, as a fiscal conservative, I believe the wealthy among us (including me) should not benefit from federal benefits like Social Security or the home mortgage interest deduction. So yes, I think I’m being quite consistent.
