Where most Americans fall under the polarized binary of being either a Democrat or a Republican, the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” ideologues try to toe the line of moderate politics, and they are failing. 

In support of minimizing governmental influence on the economy, fiscal conservatism upholds the benefits of reduced taxes, free markets and the reduction of government deficit spending. It centers monetary freedom as intrinsically tied to the freedom of the individual. 

However, by definition, moderates maintain typically progressive opinions, believing in civil rights for all. For instance, according to Pew Research Center, about 67% of moderates and liberal Republicans express support for pro-choice legislation in reproductive care. Other equality movements such as education reform and same-sex marriage tend to garner the support of the moderate population.

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

Despite recognizing the need for systemic change in socio-political issues contributing to class, racial and gender disparities, the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” ideology continually prioritizes monetary efficacy; it is entirely conditional on economic freedom. Dogmatically, “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people believe it is plausible to achieve both social progress and limited government economic interference.

In reality, it is not only paradoxical but impossible. We live in an ultra-capitalistic world where the very essence of care materializes itself in money. Because money is the currency of change, fiscal conservatism often translates to opposing the mechanisms that would provide a working solution toward systemic inequities.

For example, a common socially liberal cause is addressing and mitigating climate change. While the Green New Deal was introduced to reduce greenhouse gases, regulate carbon emissions and address environmental racism, its expensive price tag — which is not exactly known but is generally estimated to be billions or trillions of dollars — automatically discounted it as a viable solution under the fiscally conservative lens. 

One cannot claim to be pro-liberation and pro-equality while defending a capitalist structure that thrives because of the exploitation and the continual marginalization of people across social identities such as race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. Such contradictory contentions are rooted in a privileged complacency to believe that these equalizing ideals can be achieved without unequivocal economic support. 

To proclaim to be “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” then serves as a rhetorical justification against a mobilized and meaningful political engagement, an apathy of sorts that mutates into a sense of political jadedness that I often hear from my elders. 

According to them, an indifference to worldly issues comes with age and responsibilities, promising that every year you blow out your birthday candles, you too will be plagued with an increased sense of civic immobility. As their priorities shift to families, bills and a house, politics becomes less about moral expression, and more about protecting those closest to them at the expense of everyone else. 

The “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” paradigm also unveils a broader movement in contemporary political discourse: the desire to maintain social capital by preaching progressive social views while simultaneously protecting an economic self-interest. In combination, this approach becomes a form of passive political participation that acknowledges social issues without committing to any substantive solutions for them. 

A study from the Society for the Study of Social Problems describes political apathy and centrist disengagement as a “response to feeling powerless in the face of political realities one cannot control.” The study concludes that emotions such as cynicism and self-involved despair are demobilizing for collective action. 

Such findings emphasize that one cannot truly be socially liberal without also supporting necessary activation to make these liberal ideals part of reality. As “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” people’s economic stance often prevents them from standing by the actualization of social progress that they support, they cannot qualify as truly liberal. 

To the self-proclaimed “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people out there, I beg you to commit to caring about politics. It is a mistake to believe that our stakes are not collectively intertwined or that what happens in politics happens in isolation. It is unfortunate that in 2025, I am shaking people’s shoulders and asking them to care about other people more than they care about money, but it must be done. Kindness resists disengagement, and it comes at no cost to the conscience.