Why is there no party like this?

[Bond]

Why is there no party in American politics that represents the model of "social liberalism and fiscal conservatism?"

I have always wondered this ever since I began following politics actively many years ago. It seems to me as though many, if not most, Americans think of themselves as socially liberal (pro-gay unions / marriage, pro-equality, pro-reasonable gun control) and fiscally conservative (balanced budgets, low taxes), but neither the Republican nor the Democratic party represent these views. Why?

The best answer I have come up with is that the Republican and Democratic party rely on the radical fringes of their base for the vast majority of the fundraising money they receive, so, in essence, they must cater to the radicals' policy demands. Of course, I also could be wrong, and not many citizens are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

[Combine 017]

Why is there no party in American politics that represents the model of "social liberalism and fiscal conservatism?"

I have always wondered this ever since I began following politics actively many years ago. It seems to me as though many, if not most, Americans think of themselves as socially liberal (pro-gay unions / marriage, pro-equality, pro-reasonable gun control) and fiscally conservative (balanced budgets, low taxes), but neither the Republican nor the Democratic party represent these views. Why?

Cause America is a socially/politically/economically corrupt nation?

[Professor S]

1) We care a two party system, so parties must have a big umbrella, unlike in a parliament where there are many parties that can be very specific. Then "governments" are created by the winning party from a series of those parties. In that sense, you could say that the American system is two governments running against each other, rather than two parties.

2) Unlike many like to say, I don't think Republicans didn't gain the south by appealing to racists, they appealed to the south by appealing to evangelicals (and no, they are not necessarily the same thing). Reagan likely would have not won the election without the "moral majority" consisting of a network of religious groups. To a fiscal conservative, this was a necessary evil at the time, but over the decades the social conservatives seem to have taken over. Part of the dumbing down of America on both sides of the political spectrum.

3) IMO, many voters who put social progressiveness at the forefront link it directly with economic progressiveness/redistribution of wealth/picking winners and losers, or view them as one and the same. It comes from a string sense of social justice, a.k.a. "fairness". "It's not fair that gay people can't get married and it's not fair that everyone can't have the same healthcare plan."

4) Fiscal conservativism doesn't sound nice or fair, even if we believe it is inevitably the most kind, fair and overall effective economic policy. People like things that sound nice and fair... until the reality of that fairness and niceness smacks them in the face (i.e. Healthcare). Unfortunately, people vote for concepts and talking points, not details and comprehensive plans... but they scream about them in town hall meetings.

[TheGame]

Cause America is a socially/politically/economically corrupt nation?

I think that's pretty much the short answer for what's wrong with media and politics here. I don't think anyone agrees 100% with what either the democratic or republican parties stand for, and people are forced to chose what they least of the two evils. Everything that democrats and republicans push at the same time we have no choice but to follow. (i.e. NAFTA, the 2008 bail out, war in iraq, patriot act)

[Vampyr]

People choose their parties first based on the social aspect and go with whatever economic philosophy it is tied to.

And who are the 'fiscal conservatives' anyway? Even the politicians who claim to be that way have shown that given the power to spend they will.

I have more respect for the people who don't even make a pretense of it.