Social Liberalism Create Fiscal Profligacy

Social liberalism creates fiscal profligacy in the long run. The consequences of upending values about life and marriage end up costing the state and the taxpayer in the long run

Social Liberalism Create Fiscal Profligacy

“I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”
“I lean right fiscally, I lean left socially.”
“I believe that you should keep your money but do whatever you want with your body.”
“I want the government out of my wallet and out of my bedroom.”

This line of political thinking has gained traction in our country.



A rising number of independent voters ally themselves with these mantras. This argument of “Do what you want, but not with my money” encompasses dire trends about our current culture.

A society based on “I want what I want, and that’s all that I want” will suffer nothing but want.

These disentanglements result from a mindset of protect my money, but live your life as you please. Frankly, a man’s fiscal conservatism will start tilting to the left with his social liberalism fairly quickly. Moreover, when there is no purpose beyond oneself, there is no courage to resist government expansion and financial mismanagement. If voters have no honor for life, no caring for their fellow man beyond their concerns about money, there is no power to stop moral decline.

The ancient Greek historian Polybius recorded the implosion of entire city states because of an accommodating political culture which disdained marriage, undid the family, and compensated citizens for not working. Ancient Rome testifies to this degradation of values beyond “Me First, and Do What You Please”. The City of Rome’s civic virtue gave way to unseemly grabbing from the Imperial Roman Empire, including salaries for shiftless layabouts. In 2013, London-based economist/historian Niall Ferguson reflected on the decimating consequences of modern life because of the lack of community and connections in our culture.

I have witnessed this downward trend in local politics, too.

Rejecting my positions on life and marriage, one neighbor argued:

“You care about things that do not really matter. A woman should be allowed to do whatever she wants with her body. And people should be allowed to marry whomever they want.”

Trying to stave off a wasteful city initiative, this businessman then argued that Republicans in California should give up their conservative stance on social issues and just focus on the fiscal matters.

Putting aside the arguments about Republicans, Democrats winning office, can this dynamic of ignoring social issues really help a party? Is there any sense, any basis to standing fiscally conservative but socially liberal? Democrats have moved toward socially liberal positions, with more life-long members becoming Republicans, including the Catholic Bishop of Providence, Rhode Island. Conservative Southern Democrats are joining the Republican Party.

If our culture ignores the origins of life, then why are we here in the first place? For a businessman to seek profits, yet dismiss the value of life, does not bode well for seeking anything in this life. If the institution of marriage is based on individual sentiments rather than greater certainties, then why marry in the first place? If marriage does not matter, then why do two men seek to be married?  Vocal gay activists and their liberal supporters are making an issue out of expanding the marriage institution. Their vehemence demonstrates that the social issues matter.

Another local politician, a school board member, defined himself as a Decline to State voter. Pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, he also opposes taxes. In private, he boasted about his large gun collection, yet he supports expanded gun control. Running for reelection, he asserted that his school district needs to raise taxes for the next four years to stave off budget foundering under Sacramento’s spending crises.

Despite his self-styled political stance, his waffling on the fiscal issues was telling, but not surprising. Fiscally conservative means nothing without values to support it, especially with no guiding principles to suggest solutions beyond the state. Our values are informed by longer-lasting, even eternal verities. With no faith in something greater, why should I not spend my money recklessly? The principles which govern defending life and defining marriage beyond an inarticulate sense of fairness dictate the immorality of spending other people’s money, whether for good intentions or bad.

Researchers have even discovered that lax abortion laws have not decreased the population of unwanted children, but rather increased the number of unparented, uncared for children. Many have emerged in more depressed regions of the country. Marriage as a whole has suffered a number of setbacks, not just because of gay activists seeking to redefine the institution, but also the overall decline in couples choosing to marry. The number of couples having children out of wedlock hurts their children, too, since they end up in a family where the parents made their comfort more important than the better interests of their family.

Social liberalism creates fiscal profligacy in the long run. The consequences of upending values about life and marriage end up costing the state and the taxpayer in the long run. Kids without stable homes are likely to drop out of school, commit crimes, become dependent on the state. Social liberalism ends up undermining fiscal conservatism, forcing the state to make up for the lack of values incorporated in our culture to mend broken men.