Social Liberalism Creates 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.

In my Southern California political district,  a rising number of independent voters ally themselves with this mantra. This argument of "Do what you want, but not with my money" encompasses dire trends about our current culture. Humanism -- Man is the measure of all things -- has combined with Hedonism -- what I want is all that matters-- has met with Materialism -- things will fulfill me.

A society based on "I want what I want, and that's all that I want" will suffer nothing but want.

The Greek historian Polybius recorded the staggering implosion then disappearance of entire city states because of an accommodating 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 state, complete with imperial salaries for shiftless layabouts. Even this year, London-based economist/historian Niall Ferguson has recorded the decimating consequences of modern life because of the lack of community and connections in our culture.

These disentanglements result from a mindset of protect my money, but live your life as you please.

The mantra of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal"  sums up this hollow narcissism.

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

One resident rejected my positions on life and marriage, arguing:

"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."

As a local businessman trying to stave off a city initiative which would have hurt his profits, this not to gentle gentleman argued that Republicans in California should give up their stance on social issues and just focus on the fiscal matters.

For the record, there are a number of Democrats in California and throughout the country who are pro-life, who do not support gay marriage. Their views may be facing a massive marginalization within their party, but they remain Democrats. This cohort of conservative Democrats even helped Hanford Cherry Farmer Andy Vidak win the special state senate election in the Central Valley earlier this year.

Putting aside the arguments about Republicans, Democrats, and anyone else winning office, can this dynamic of ignoring social issues really help one party? Is there any sense, any basis to standing fiscally conservative but socially liberal on the issues?

If we do not care about the origins of life, then why are we here in the first place? For a businessman to seek profits, yet ignore the meaning 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 liberal political elites are making an issue out of expanding the marriage institution. Their vehemence demonstrates that the social issues matter.

Besides, there is no purpose, there is no power to resist government expansion and financial mismanagement if men and women have no regard, no respect for life, no caring for their fellow man beyond their concerns about losing money.

This selfish hedonism is unsustainable.

Frankly, a man's fiscal conservatism will start tilting to the left with his social liberalism fairly quickly.

Another local politician, a school board member in my city, defined himself as a Decline to State voter. He was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, but he opposed taxes. Then he shared about all the guns he owned, yet he supported expanded gun control measures. Running for school board again, he asserted that the district needs to raise a parcel tax in order to fund the schools for the next four years without foundering under Sacramento's spending crises.

I thought he was fiscally conservative. How he defined himself, and what he shared, were two different things. Fiscally conservative means nothing without values to support it. Why should I not spend my money recklessly? The principles which govern defending life at every stage and defining marriage in accordance with more than my sense of fairness also dictate the immorality of spending other people's money, whether for good intentions or bad.

Researchers have discovered that lax abortion laws have not decreased the population of unwanted children, but rather an increase in the number of unparented, uncared for children 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.

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

Social liberalism creates fiscal profligacy in the long run.