Why do fiscal and social conservatism usually go hand in hand?

Heh heh. Noted you did not address the questions raised in my post.

 

It's your imagination. Most conservatives are simply fiscal conservatives who have a sense of personal responsibility. Personal responsibity is not something the bothers liberals.

I'm a conservative and an atheist. I support Roe vs. Wade, reluctantly, do not support late-term abortions for any reason other than the physical health of the mother, think gays should have all rights and responsibilities of other individuals and couples.

The people of faith who bother me the most are liberals. Liberal true believers are frightening. They want power with absolutely no personal responsibility.

 

With the exception of my family, nothing is more important than individual liberty. Individual liberty operates on many levels and includes many component elements.

One of those elements is called personal autonomy. Personal autonomy demands that only the individual himself or herself can make decisions concerning his or her body.

There are other reasons as well. But this is enough for you to digest at this time. By the way...Zorro has two r's.

 

It is because of the sanctity of the life of the murder victim that makes the death penalty the most appropriate for the criminal to pay the ultimate price..

 

Because if people have personal freedom to think for themselves, why would they willingly submit to immoral, oppressive, archaic systems like theocracy, or "free" market corrupt capitalism?

 

I have personal freedom. What I am not willing to submit to is the immoral Federal Government usurping my freedoms.

 

Being that the liberals are the polar opposites, one would think you would see both sides for what they are, 2 wheels of an elitist controlled state apparatus. The reason it is set up like it is, is so statism never loses traction and the state is forever growing in power. I assure you, if the state was a separate entity from the super wealthy, you would see both parties serve the opposite agenda, the shrinking of the state. Because we all know politicians do what they are told. Therefore, one must conclude the state is nothing more than a tool of the most powerful, and the fundamentals of representation have been compromised.

 

@OP

In the real world -- outside America -- fiscal conservatism and social personal freedoms do go hand in hand.

From Argentina, to Belgium, to the UK, to Finland, to Japan, to Australia, etc.

These strange people are known as "Liberals" or "Liberal-Democrats".

 

What I find ironic is your tendency towards gross generalization without any facts to back them up.

 

They don't go together any more than social liberals and fiscal profligates go together.

 

They do. I've explained this three times on here in the last week. Social conservatism is more libertarian than social liberalism. The bull(*)(*)(*)(*) narrative that "conservatives want to control your life" is ridiculous and inaccurate if you actually look at it. But too many people walk around parroting what they hear other people say and never really stop to question it.

Let's look at the two side by side, shall we?

Social conservatism means government intervention in three areas: abortion, marriage, and drugs. Can you think of any others I'm leaving out?

Social liberalism involves controling, regulating, or banning a myriad of different things including but not limited to: what you can eat, where you can smoke, what kind of lightbulbs you can use, whether or not you can circumcize your child, where you can say the pledge of allegiance, what kind of wood you can make guitars out of, whether or not you can choose to purchase healthcare, whether or not you can own pets, what kind of guns you can own, where you can practice your religion, what your children are allowed to say on the playground and on and on and on.

Gee, when you look at it written down in front of you, it appears that the left is still the party of big government even in social matters, doesn't it?

 

Republicans were essentially Libertarians until around the 1970s.

At that point, Democrats started losing the South because of their growing support for integration, and Republicans started gaining the South by picking up disaffected Dixiecrats.

Democrats used to be the social conservatives, but now only one wing of the party is somewhat socially conservative (the Blue Dogs).

Republicans used to be socially liberal, but now, almost all of the social liberals in the GOP are gone.

Nowadays, Republicans that are moderate on social issues either tend to defect to the Libertarian party or survive only in the Northeast.

 

Somewhat true, though don't essentially both parties regulate that list of things you provided? I suppose to refine my argument, I wouldn't say that traditional Democratic party social policy would work that well with fiscal conservatism either.