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 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. you’re still authoritarian.
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 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. you’re still authoritarian.