A “Moderate,” You Say?

By Alon Preiss.

Just a quick word on all these Beltway pundits who argue that this country needs a politician who is “socially liberal and fiscally conservative,” and the various liberal politicians responding that that’s the last thing this country needs. This fellow, the “socially liberal fiscal conservative” is sometimes referred to as a “moderate.” A guy like Starbucks founder, Howard Schultz.

I would suggest that there is no such thing as a “socially liberal fiscal conservative.” He’s as much of a myth as our old friend the “anti-Zionist who is not anti-Semitic,” or the gadfly who is “politically incorrect but definitely not racist.”

If you are politically incorrect, that means you like saying racist things, which is racist, come to think of it; and if you are anti-Zionist, that means you don’t want Jews, among all the nations of the world, to keep their country, which is pretty anti-Semitic, wouldn’t you say?

And if you are fiscally conservative, you are not a liberal.

Please subscribe for free to Audere Magazine to receive our latest stories in your inbox

* indicates required

Liberals believe that the government should spend money (and tax the wealthy) to achieve certain valuable social ends, which include civil rights, but also a fairer economic structure.

The socially liberal fiscal conservative, commendably, believes that the government should stay out of the bedroom, but he also believes that the government shouldn’t tax the rich to pay for decent schools or health care for the poor.

He calls himself a “moderate.” But there is a more accurate word for this animal: a libertarian anarchist.

But that sounds kind of radical, doesn’t it?

Design from an image by Wokandapix