Modern Liberalism, or "Social Liberal/Fiscal Conservative"

In the course of many years of watching, studying and participating in American politics as a voter, I have had to reacquaint myself with some terms that are thrown around alot and, without the proper understanding, may be used falsely.

I first wanted to look up liberalism.

Originally, liberalism held that you had natural rights. Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You had the right to free market, you had the right to the fruits of your labor. You also had the negative freedoms, the right NOT to be arrested with a trial of your peers, a right NOT to be persecuted due to your beliefs, etc.

This is now referred to as Classical Liberalism, or Libertarianism.

Neo-Liberalism, as we know it today, is a corporate rights movement. It stemmed almost solely from the right to free-enterprise that marked the early 1900's. Today, Neo-Liberalism could be seen in trade agreements like NAFTA, ideas like "free-trade", and globalism.

The notion of Social Liberalism, is that "liberalism should include a social foundation" (see: wikipedia.org) That it is the state's (governments job) to manage job creation, health care, and education as well with civil rights. Social Liberalism is what can now be referred to as Modern Liberalism.

Neo-liberalism tends to be a form of corporatism, and social liberalism, utilizing the State as shepard of governed. Only as long as the corporations don't influence or control the government would they be seen as seperate ideas. Otherwise, as historically happened in the 1970's, corporations denounced the idea of social liberalism as it would always mean more and higher taxes.

Which gets me to my thread's title; how could a social liberal be a fiscal conservative. By advocating themselves as the former, a social liberal, they are already working under the heading of "how the State should take care of me," but the former seems to be a contradiction to the latter, that the State should save it's money, and not spend tax money errantly.

Fiscal conservatism would be defined as balancing budgets, cutting spending and abolishing the idea of defecit spending.

But how would a social liberal ever enforce fiscal conservatism? What programs of government spending would a social liberal accuse of as being unnecessary where the same accusations couldn't be levelled against themselves?

It is a wolf in sheeps clothing moment, where the wolf of government spending, wear's the sheeps skin of fiscal conservativism.

I'm not sure if I'm answering this correctly; I may have misunderstood you. If so, I apologize.

To be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. To be libertarian. In my view, these two do not contradict each other.

The socially liberal point-of-view treats adults as adults. If a man wants to marry a man, it's no one else's business. If a person wants to do drugs, let them. It's their choice, and it doesn't hurt anyone else. If someone wants to be a prostitute, it's their body. Let people do what they will if it doesn't hurt others. The government has no need to know these things or to intervene in any way.

As for being fiscally conservative, that's part being responsible and part empowering. It makes sense to spend less than you make - to have more money coming in than going out. Again, it's part of being an adult. The government should tax at an appropriate level. If it's running a huge surplus, it's taxing too much. The more money that is left in the tax payers' hands, the better. It empowers them to spend more money on what THEY feel they need - not what the government says they need. And when people spend their money, they drive the economy, which creates more jobs.

This is a very, very brief touching of what I think you're asking, and it could be taken to much deeper levels. In my opinion, having a libertarian point of view is that of being a responsible adult.