I think it was Daniel Bell who said that he was a political liberal, a cultural conservative and fiscal socialist. I've heard that he and his ilk were influences upon the neo-conservatives in the US which I doubt would want to described as "socialist" in any respect but I think it makes an interesting point, do you have a similar demarcation in terms of your opinions? Does it make it difficult to identify with any political ideology or party or movement whole heartedly? Which is most important? Politics, culture or fiscal policy in determining your political support, vote or decision making?
I know there is perhaps a difficulty in terms of definition or a point of clarification, Bell probably wouldnt challenge the idea that mixed economies, state intervention, regulation, taxation and public spending etc. are "socialist" per se, which I would not consider to be the case, I largely think that those things are not especially "capitalist" or "socialist" anymore (sometimes I question the usefulness of those words or definitions in enabling discussion rather than obstructing it).
There are similar problems with defining cultural conservatism, it involves acceptance, I think, of some conservative definitions too, such as work ethics, personal responsibility, even consequentialism, which should be norms which can be discussed in non-partisan ways or be recognised as things which can not be laid claim to with any sort of ownership by any political ideology and frequently can not be.
Although with those caveats and qualifications in place I hope it'll be possible to carry out some sort of discussion.
I know there is perhaps a difficulty in terms of definition or a point of clarification, Bell probably wouldnt challenge the idea that mixed economies, state intervention, regulation, taxation and public spending etc. are "socialist" per se, which I would not consider to be the case, I largely think that those things are not especially "capitalist" or "socialist" anymore (sometimes I question the usefulness of those words or definitions in enabling discussion rather than obstructing it).
There are similar problems with defining cultural conservatism, it involves acceptance, I think, of some conservative definitions too, such as work ethics, personal responsibility, even consequentialism, which should be norms which can be discussed in non-partisan ways or be recognised as things which can not be laid claim to with any sort of ownership by any political ideology and frequently can not be.
Although with those caveats and qualifications in place I hope it'll be possible to carry out some sort of discussion.
