THE "SOCIALLY LIBERAL, FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE" MYTH.

There have been many times when I've engaged in healthy and vigorous debate with my friends. The topics are wide-reaching, but, more often than not, the discussions involve politics. My liberal friends and I partake in lively and mostly humourous Conservative-bashing, and I really enjoy these. My conservative friends and I, however, engage in more intense and often visceral discussions that eventually descend into argument. Sad to say, I find these rather stimulating as well, and I know my adversaries like to bait me and get me angry. But there are times, when we feel the debate temperature rising, that one or both of us decide to pull back and end the debate before hard feelings emerge. I often do this by saying "we'll agree to disagree" and that usually does it. But many of my conservative friends de-escalate with something like "well, I don't agree with everything that Trump/Ford/Harper/Kenney says because I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative."

I used to buy that sentence and nod my head and secretly thank them for ending what could've been a divisive debate. I thought that phrase, "socially liberal but fiscally conservative", was a reasonable position and that my friends were thoughtful and wise people.

I was conned.

What, exactly, does "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" mean? When its said quickly and in the heat of conversation, it sounds like a fair middle ground, a place where all of us can live in peace and harmony, doing the right thing and enjoying all the fruits of liberalism and conservatism. In reality, it's a non-sensical cop-out, a way of silencing an interlocuter and claiming a draw in the debate when the speaker is clearly losing.

"Socially liberal" implies a belief in all the qualities of a modern, progressive society. It implies that the believer is against things that seek to destroy us: racism, sexism, xenophobia, denial of climate change, and all kinds of inequality. The socially liberal person adheres to an agenda that could get Liberals, NDP or Greens elected. The socially liberal person believes in a better tomorrow and thinks of him/herself as being one of the "good guys" and might, when under observation, shake his/her head at the silliness of Trump or Ford.

"Fiscally conservative" implies a belief in being financially responsible. It suggests that one of the biggest problems in modern society is debt, corruption, and the stifling of the entrepreneurial spirit. The fiscally conservative person is particularly upset when his/her taxes are being squandered on wasteful things. As a result of this anger about taxes, the fiscal conservative is deeply distrustful of  big government, which he/she sees as a type of enemy. The fiscal conservative wants to reward the vision, hard work and risk-taking of those who are willing to do these,  and wants to punish those who, in their eyes, are slothful, profligate, or unfocussed in their financial vision.

One may ask "is it not possible to be both?" The answer has to be a resounding NO !!

The "social liberal, fiscal conservative" ( hereafter referred to as SLFC ) is a person who says all the right things about social justice …. until there's a price tag attached. Then, the liberalism is reigned in faster than a turtle head on a really cold day. The SLFC would be quite comfortable with sayings like, "of course I believe in equality … wait, you say there has to be affirmative action programmes to help disadvantaged people get ahead paid for by taxes? I'm out !! " Or something like, "of course I believe that climate change is real, but Canada doesn't contribute much to world pollution like China does, so these climate pricing schemes are just going to cost me money. No way do I support them." Or how about this one: " yeah, it's really sad to see all the suffering in the world, but why do my taxes have to go to help foreigners? Especially when we have so many poor people here at home! Wait, you want to raise my taxes to help people on First Nations reserves get drinkable water, or decent and clean housing? Nope, not on my dime !"  Or, finally, consider this line of "thinking." "Well, sure, the opioid crisis is a terrible thing, but I don't want one of those safe-injection sites near my neighbourhood. Who's going to pay for it, anyway?"

Some readers may be ready to have their heads explode after reading these. I challenge you to ask yourself these simple questions. Are my SLFC sentences unrealistic? Have you never heard people say things like them? Have you not said them yourself? Of course you have.

These sentences reflect a type of self-denial, a type of intellectual schizophrenia. Issues are often complex and endlessly nuanced. When we find ourselves embroiled in debates, we want to come off as an informed, intelligent and confident debaters. We don't want to seem to be simplistic or …. gasp … wrong. So we try to invent these positions that cover all the bases, that show us as being a person of reason or compassion, as well as possessing a cold intellect.

And it's a sham. You cannot be SLFC. Why? Because there's a limit to your liberalism or conservatism, that's why.

It's like being a "young senior" or a "free-will determinist". Or being sort of pregnant. Or kind of dead.

You're either a liberal or a conservative, with all the strengths and weaknesses, all the benefits and detriments, all the positives and all the negatives of both sides.

So, make up your mind … what are you?