The curious case of the 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative'

The stereotype of the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” student is no novelty. Many students in college ostensibly ascribe to this political stance. Plus, this stereotype fits with the stereotype of the affluent student at a primarily liberal arts school popularly known as Princeton University.

To a degree, this stereotype is rooted in truth. In this ever-volatile political climate, millennials are changing their views as more and more of them move toward nonconformity from their parents and an immutable two-party system that has engendered polarization and disillusionment with American government and politics. This is ultimately compelling them to turn away from explicit political parties and to adopt a propensity for looking specifically to the issues that concern them the most. They are moving more toward the center of the political spectrum, many of whom are forming a new voting bloc called the “Young Outsiders.”

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Group in 2010, there is a discernible trend among this generation of moving toward this sort of dualistic ideology. Younger people remain liberal on social issues, including but not limited to the environment and LGBTQA rights, while they remain conservative on fiscal issues, such as spending, the economy and the notion of the welfare state.

But this self-identification is contradictory. This juxtaposition of social liberalism with fiscal conservatism is a glaring paradox. It is impractical and unrealistic to fully seek social liberalism —gay rights, the legalization of marijuana, a welfare state, universal healthcare —without big government, without spending, without taxes, without fiscal liberalism. On one hand, social liberalism refers to the compromise of freedom in search for social justice and greater civil liberties while, on the other hand, fiscal conservatism refers to cutting government spending and debt while pursuing small government. It is not feasible to have to seek social programs (like the Affordable Care Act), which necessitate government spending while simultaneously seeking small government with curbed powers.

It turns out this centrist ideology has a name —libertarianism. And yet, many people who constitute this new bloc of voters aren’t even aware of that.

The manner in which this title is used by so many today is inaccurate and misconstrued. It’s important to know what “socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative” entail. Myriads of people associate social liberalism merely with “letting gays marry” and fiscal conservatism with “lowering taxes for the rich.” However, these two ideologies connote more than that. Social liberalism is the belief that champions the alleviation of poverty, the expansion of education and universal healthcare. Fiscal conservatism is a policy that opposes deficit spending and supports the reduction of the national debt and overall deregulation of the economy.

Just like many who identify as liberals, conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, many who identify as socially liberal but fiscally conservative don’t fully understand —or even know —what they are supporting. Perhaps if more people who identify this way actually knew what such a stance meant, they wouldn’t actually ascribe to such a title in the first place.

Nevertheless, this title has evolved into a new fad across college campuses —duly noted, an even more conspicuous trend at Princeton – and it’s easy to see why. There is a particular allure to it. As a young constituent in the United States today, it is more “attractive” to dissociate oneself with the stigmas attributed to both political parties and ascribe to this political affiliation. It presents a seemingly centrist ideology, which allows voters not to have to fully conform to either party’s platform.

It’s even more attractive as a pretense for the incognizant and/or apathetic college voter. It’s never been easier to elude censure as the uneducated, indifferent kid of voting age than by embracing the mob mentality behind this title.

But this self-identification is irksome. As much as I share in my generation's disgruntlement with a strictly two-party system, which impels people to conform to the party’s views or risk not having their voices heard, subscribing to the “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” stance doesn’t exactly ameliorate the current climate.

Don’t conform to a party’s platform out of a perceived necessity. Formulate your own opinions and views on individual issues based on your own convictions. Do research on the issues and take an active civic and political role. But don’t heedlessly attribute this paradoxical, misguided title to yourself, particularly if you don’t even know what this title specifically refers to.

Sarah Sakha is a freshman from Scottsdale, Ariz. She can be reached at ssakha@princeton.edu.