Would I support a social conservative candidate with more progressive (economic) views?

 So, this came up in a liberal forum I used to frequent, but quit going to because the users were so insufferable that I rage quit it. I still lurk there and laugh at the comments, but don't post. You'll see why when you read some of these comments. 

Essentially, the user asked the question above, and in providing more details, asked:

Sort of explains itself, but would you support a social conservative individual who had a lot of other more left wing views?

Ex a pro-2nd amendment, pro-life, lukewarm-on-BLM candidate who really liked M4A, a carbon tax, wealth tax, much stricter business regulations etc.

Reasoning: I grew up in a rural area and a lot of my Dem friends there line up with a lot of what I described yet voted Trump because of the first few issues.

 

 Now, first, my answer. And here's the thing. It depends. Despite being anti woke, and fairly moderate on social issues, I would not vote for an extreme rightist on social issues even if they offered stuff I want. By extreme rightist I mean like a theocrat or a nazi. But of course, if their views are more heterodox and more moderate, sure. I like how Yang seems a bit more socially conservative than the rest of the democratic party without being stupid about it, and I tend to have relatively conservative to moderate views on issues like immigration, race, and guns. That said, to discuss the three issues presented.

1) Pro 2nd Amendment- Cool. I, too, am pro second amendment. I did have a liberal phase where I tried being for gun control, but I kind of realized that it doesn't seem to work, at least in America. I know other countries have tried it successfully, but they are on other continents, surrounded by neighbors who are also quite anti gun, or a giant island-continent on their own in Australia's case. I don't believe that such an idea could work well in America, where most gun violence is done with illegal firearms in the first place. Given how much we suck at prohibition type stuff, and given how I believe that punishing legal gun owners just ends up hurting them. This is not to say that we can't improve the process for buying guns by closing loopholes and the like, but most realistic restrictions on guns aren't going to do much to curb gun violence. 

2) Pro life- This, of the three, would be my biggest issue with this guy's platform. I am strongly pro choice and for reproductive freedom. It is probably the social issue I care about most, and am more extreme than the vast majority of democrats on it. I'll discuss why again after reading one of the comments later, but suffice to say, I believe most liberals aren't even consistent on the issue and are only pro choice in order to be virtue signalling feminists. Still, I support Roe V. Wade, and as someone who is childfree, I hate the idea of forcing people to become a parent. Just as I hate wage slavery, I hate the idea of forcing people to work to pay child support or work to raise a child they never wanted in the first place. People should be as free from obligations as possible, and parenthood is a massive one that without stuff like abortion, people are forced into unjustly. I also just don't value a fetus as a life worth preserving with legal force, given the lack of brain development through most of a pregnancy. And I'm not going to even try to honor the perspective of pro lifers who seem to wanna impose their crazy religious views on people

The thing is whether this is more important than basic income, medicare for all, etc. for me. And I have to say, it is not. So it's a bit of a tough sell, but if I were guaranteed support for my top priorities in exchange for getting a pro lifer, I would reluctantly support them as a candidate. I would cringe, but I would support them. 

3) "Lukewarm on BLM"- Uh, join the club. Sums up my views perspective. I wanna emphasize I'm not inherently against BLM as a movement, but I'm not gonna act like it defines my worldview or its an important enough issue that affects how I vote. And given the people who virtue signal about BLM don't seem to give a crap about economic priorities, I would be fine with someone who is merely apathetic on the issue. After all, the line here isn't "wants to go back to jim crow or slavery" or something. We're not talking nazis who wanna send black people to gas chambers here. We're talking someone who is "apathetic" on the issue, in which case I say sign me the fudge up.

That said, would I support this theoretical candidate? Yes. Abortion is my only red line here, and I would probably hold my nose and compromise on that single issue to get everything else I want. 

But, hey, lots of other liberals would NOT do that. So let's look at some of their views.

No, I would not vote for an anti-choice candidate under any circumstances, much less one who was "lukewarm" about equal rights for all Americans.

 So abortion is a red line for them. Which is fair. It is a soft one for me, but given my willingness to compromise, it's soft.

As for "lukewarm about equal rights", oh give me a freaking break. This right here is one of the reasons I hate liberals these days. They put words in peoples' mouths and misconstrue what we're saying. BLM is about policing. It's specifically about police violence and how trigger happy cops are. While it emphasizes black people it really applies to police violence in general. And while I do find those issues to be valid, I would say I'm apathetic, but supportive.

That's the thing. Apathy means it doesnt matter. It means we dont care. It means that we won't get in your way, but dont ram the stuff down our throats. And this is what these guys dont understand. They wanna ram it down peoples' throats and act like if they dont "care" as much as they do that they're crap for it. 

Even if the “lukewarm on Black lives” didn’t disgust me (and it very much does), even if I was only looking out for myself, folks like that generally don’t like trans people like me getting medical treatment or civil rights. 

 

 This one is kind of injecting other issues into it, some of which are more personal, which is valid. A trans person isn't gonna support someone who isn't supportive of their choices, and I wouldn't expect them to. Of course transgenderism only impacts less than 1% of the US population, so I'm not really gonna lose sleep over it.

Either way it wasn't mentioned here. And being lukewarm on BLM "disgusts" him? Again. This is the problem with liberals. They pretty much force you to care. Even if you don't. 

If they support progressive views they wouldn't be socially conservative.

 Uh, gatekeep much? Not everyone is 100% one way or the other. Nuance exists. And yes it works philosophically.

No chance. Economic stances are up for discussion. Social stances are etched are 100%, etched in stone, non-negotiable.

This is the epitome of craplibs. Social issues are read lines, but we can debate living wages, wage slavery, and whether you have access to healthcare. I know I am bordering on putting words in this person's mouth, but he kind of just gave the game away.

Let's rephrase this: would I throw Black and LGBT people under the bus if it might get me M4A? No. I believe that would be what is scientifically referred to as a "dick move."

  Now, this is personal to me, but here's my response:

"Why? They throw me under the bus all the time."

Remember what I said on this blog for years. That I'd be willing to work with them, but we have to be a coalition. They have to be at least nominally supportive of my stuff and me of theirs. Nominally can be apathy, just, dont get in my way. But, it seems quite clear that these groups often will promote their social issues and then tell me I'm privileged for wanting economics. Heck, if you wanna know why I'm so bitter on this, in part it's because I've literally argued with this same lot of people before, on this forum. And quite frankly, they do throw me and my priorities under the bus constantly. While shaming and gaslighting me for it. 

Just for anyone who wants to know why I'm so cavalier and apathetic. I'm just done even trying to work with these people. 

A sub thread of the above:

This is the historical problem with this compromise - Medicare For All becomes Medicare For All*

*People social conservatives dislike not included

 Isn't that a thing you "democrats" do? Means test stuff? Exclude people? Say we can't have universal safety nets? Except they get so high and mighty about the poor, and the underprivileged, and blah blah blah. But, because I'm white, and male, and straight, I can sink or swim. Just the vibe I get from this group a lot of the time. 

I know they're referencing the new deal and how social democracy back then did have a lot of screwing over racial minorities. Dems love talking about the "original sin of racism" in their ideology and flaunting stuff that happened 50+ years ago in our faces as the reason we can't have nice things. But they're actually the ones who are doing this. I just want universal stuff for everyone. And I don't think that excluding people was on the agenda here. They're just injecting that into this.

 

I wouldn’t vote for a pro-life candidate. That typically implies they want to implement abortion bans - which is incredibly dangerous and horrible. There are some sort of more moderate “pro-life” candidates who don’t call themselves pro-choice, but they believe Roe v Wade is settled law and so they aren’t trying to reverse it. I could be ok with that depending on their other stance - but I would prefer someone who vows to defend women’s rights.

I don’t like “lukewarm on BLM” either. It makes me think the person hasn’t actually taken the time to understand the issues the Black Lives Matter movement is about and instead thinks it’s just a monolith you can simply be “for” or “against.” I wouldn’t like a candidate that doesn’t care enough to understand the movement and what a huge part of the population say they need.

EDIT - and I think it’s even worse if someone says “lukewarm on BLM” because it’s like ok you didn’t really look into it and all of the different issues, but somehow you’re still vaguely against it? Vaguely against what? The fact that Black lives matter ? Wtf?

 1) Yeah, okay. I mean, I can kind of respect the abortion thing. it's very close to being a red line myself given my support for unfettered reproductive freedom. As for moderate pro lifers who believe its settled law...dude, that's Hillary Clinton. And I raked Hillary over hot coals in 2016 for her christian views making her politics insufferably moderate. 

2) Uh, lukewarm means lukewarm. It means we understand there are issues there but we don't emphasize it, don't care, and see BLM in a nuanced way as having both good and not so good elements. BLM is...questionable to me. Like, they do good, but then they go overboard and start screaming about police violence when the offender was being violent themselves, contorting themselves into pretzels explaining why they should've used a taser to disarm the hopped up guy charging at cops with a knife. Or, they scream in your ear with a megaphone about how black lives matter. Or, they scream at Rand Paul, who literally wrote a bill banning no knock warrants that led to breonna taylor's death, following him around, harassing her, and insisting he "say her name." To be honest, BLM has a valid social cause, but their tactics are, quite frankly, obnoxious. And it puts people off. 

So yeah, some people are lukewarm on the issue. Meaning they're apathetic, their views are nuanced, and they don't care. I would be fully supportive of such a person. So many libs are making this a red line for them.

As others have said, if you're asking me if I'd trade civil rights for minorities for Medicare For All, the answer is no.

 No one is asking you to trade civil rights for minorities. They simply said "lukewarm on BLM". So much putting words in peoples' mouths.

If your friends prioritize their gun collection and their racism over saving the climate and not dying in an emergency room, I'm happy not having their vote.

My human rights aren't negotiable and at a certain point I'm done pandering to or bailing out rural communities if they can't get on board.

 Well that's a crappy way to frame it. More self righteousness and words in peoples' mouths. To be fair I've debated this person before, and they tend to represent the worst in liberalism and SJWism to me. 

They're not kidding on being done with social conservatives either. This person basically comes off to me as being practically a republican on economics if you're white and male, and gets insufferably self righteous on social issues. 

The funny thing is the feeling's mutual. I'm done working with this kind of person too. Maybe UBI and M4A are my red lines and I'm not gonna get bogged down in social issues, especially when most conservatives and definitely all moderates are nowhere near as crazy as these guys seem to think they are. But that's the thing. You're not allowed to be moderate with these guys. You either are as crazy on social issues as them, or you're a right winger. It's a huge problem this group has. Not willing to compromise on the social at all. But they'll give away the farm on economics in an instant.

No, because the idea that women, Black people, and LGBTQ+ people are fully human is non-negotiable to me.

 Say it with me. NO ONE IS SAYING THEY'RE NOT HUMAN. Heck, pro lifers are pro life not because they hate women, but because they believe the fetus is life. I would know, I WAS ONE ONCE. 

All they said was "lukewarm on BLM", Jesus christ people. They make it out to be like they're negotiating with nazis. Not that they're being asked to bend on a handful of issues to get substantive gains.

Nope. My uterus is not negotiable. I don't care about gun issues one way or the other, though.

 Red line on abortion, I can respect this one.

I don't mind someone who is personally pro life as long as they aren't trying to make abortion difficult or illegal for everyone else. But failure to understand and appreciate the issues behind BLM would make me feel like this person was either selfish or ignorant (not dumb, ypu know, but not educated on the issues).

 Uh thats what pro lifers are. What they're describing is HRC's religious liberal position. 

More obnoxiousness on BLM though. Because how dare you want a better life for yourself rather than dedicating all of your time and energy to issues that don't even affect you. 

If they're aligned with Trump, or even tolerant of Trump, then no chance; none of those other issues remotely justify a Trump vote anyways. If they've favored his impeachment and removal all along; then they'd be in the possible but quite unlikely pile, depending on what they're pushing on those other views. I've seen far too many 'pro-lifers' that push unconstitutional laws, and that really seem more interested in hurting poor women than actually trying to positively address the difficult situations. In practice I'm unlikely to ever support them because there's nearly always some other candidate with better stances available to vote for where I am.

 Aligned and tolerant are two different things, but that's another issue with liberal self righteousness. Either you're one of them 100%, or you're a trumper. Being pro trump for say, economic reasons means you're bad because you might not be pro trump on everything, but you showed its not a deal breaker. And that's where they hate more moderate people. Either you're extreme like them or you're nothing.

But hey, it's perfectly fine to throw out all economic progress like other users said here, right?

I can understand some aspects of this opinion. Some pro lifers are ridiculously irrational and even before i philosophically became pro choice i recognized that pro life legislation is a net negative and should not be pursued. And if canddiates with better stances exist, sure. But that's the thing. Given how so many libs are willing to abandon economic progress for social issues, the question is essentially asking, what if you had to choose between social liberalism and economic conservatism or vice versa. And the thing is, these guys are all in on social issues and dont care about economics.

I mean, for the record that would apply to me too. I would like someone fairly left wing on most social issues too. As I said, I feel like guns and race this hypothetical candidate gets just about right for me, but on stuff like abortion, yeah, more pro choice. 

Absolutely no.

Look, I’d be happy to have heavier regulations, but the social policies are a big part of why I’ve got the views I do. Absent a better option, yeah, but I’d gag myself in the ballot box.

 At least they're honest.

No because my alternative is almost certainly going to be better on social issues and the same on the rest.

 Not necessarily. Look at, say, forward. Socially moderate, economically left. Given how horrid the centrist wing of the democratic party is, which is most democrats, yeah, if you actually could make real progress on economic issues, they would not be better on other issues.

Then again this particular guy is a moderate if I recall, so he isn't exactly pursuing lofty goals.

If said conservative was fiscal only, maybe. I'm in a weird limbo where I live (rural area) and I do feel as though progressive candidates don't properly represent the county I live in (wildfires and responsible forestry/water rights to name a few local issues) but I can't in good conscience vote conservative. Talk about out of touch... I would however like liberal representatives to listen to what the rural counties have to say. I know I'm harping on it but, we need to be able to log our forests out here. Not clear cutting of course but sustainable logging to bring back a few good paying jobs, and mitigate wildfire risks. As far as water tables are concerned, no problem sharing but the private water company out here needs serious regulation, they charge us out the nose and are about to start metering wells, it's ridiculous.

 Again, fine if it's economics, not on other stuff. And people wonder why I've come to hate liberals.

I'm still waiting for the part where you describe this hypothetical person's progressive views. Because the misogynistic bigoted racist wasn't doing it for me.

 Obnoxiously strong language. Medicare for all isn't progressive?

Would i tolerate them? Yes. Would i ever vote for them over a dem? Fuck no.

Pro-life, and indifferent to BLM completely ruined it for me. Those are non negotiable to me. We can do better than settling for a cup of warm piss.

Im sick to death of this crappy tug of war where we are stuck arguing over who is slightly less shitty.

 This guy is labeled a socialist so, slightly different, but to analyze. Vote over a dem? Dems are socially far left but economically moderate/conservative. 

It's literally asking you to choose between economics and social issues. And you chose social. Again, i can understand pro life, but I feel like the amount of outrage over someone not caring about BLM is ridiculous here. I will never get how liberals and leftists get so uppity over someone not caring about social issues as much as they do, and why that's such a red line. Again, not even anti their goals, just neutral. I look at people neutral on UBI or M4A and I kinda have to wonder if they would support them push comes to shove, but it's better than someone who is outright anti those goals, which the democratic party and in the case of UBI a lot of the left has positioned themselves as.

I'm tired of the tug of war between crappy candidates too, btw. But they seem more than happy to settle if they're voting dem. It just depends on their red lines.

 What does "lukewarm" on BLM mean? He only thinks some black lives matter?

*rolls eyes*

 Except for the anti choice thing, which i agree is a deal breaker for me, you're describing Bernie Sanders.

 And this one gives away another aspect I find insufferable about libs. Abortion thing, okay fine. But describing Bernie in this way really gives some insight to the craplib psyche and shows how effective the clintonite propaganda was. Bernie was very pro BLM, probably one of the most pro BLM candidates. he just didnt circlejerk about it like a caricature of a pharasee from the bible. And yeah he is moderate on guns, but hey, rural vermont. So what?

Then again most of these guys hate bernie so...

People are being very knee-jerk about this, but voting is a tactical choice, and there are issues in play (M4A, global warming) that have a very large consequentialist footprint. So if this person would be the decisive vote for M4A and real action on climate change, and an inconsequential minority opponent of gun control and Roe, then I think I would have to vote for them. It's a nail-biting kind of situation with other election uncertainty and potentially a 6 year term for this person, in the Senate. And if the whip count math is less clear-cut, then the choice is much harder. But if the goods are actual lives saved, and the ills are ineffectually symbolic -- and there's no other way to get the goods -- it seems to me that a vote for this candidate would be morally required. That's different from liking them, of course.

 Wait, an actual nuanced opinion that discussed how tactical the decision is? Maybe this forum isn't doomed after all. I wonder how long this person will last there.

This is tough. My instinct is to say yes, but it depends on the specific issues.

When you start selling off the lived experience of actual human being for fiscal boons, or trading one group's rights for another, that's tough. How much am I willing to sacrifice among the gay people I know and care about in the name of better tax policy? Would I be willing to harm and restrict the rights of the women I know but increase and support the rights of black people I know? If a candidate holds positions that bring all of these things into conflict, it's tough. I'd have to gauge candidate by candidate, I don't think a blanket answer can be given to this.

  Another good one. Amazing how once you get past the most upvoted circlejerky opinions we actually see nuanced discussion. It actually is tough, and it's really contextual and depends on circumstances. 

would probably vote against them, unless the alternative was something equally strange.

But hey... if we end up with a President like you described, I'd work to built bipartisan support where possible, but not at the expense of peoples' lives. I think there's room to work on 2A issues. A reasonable pro-life President would understand that they hold the minority view and use their position to advance a policy that's progressive for their position.

Seems like the person you're describing would be a better GOP candidate than we've had in quite some time. So... could be worse.

 Uh, do they really think the GOP would support someone for climate change action and healthcare? They're literally comic book evil on these issues. 

Not if the other option was a full out progressive. But if it was someone socially right but economically left versus someone socially left but economically right, I’d hold my nose and vote for the former.

 Sure. Fair opinion. No one is saying if you can have it all that you should compromise. 

Hell no. I will never support a conservative politician.

If they're ant-abortion or anti-BLM, they can kick rocks. Their other beliefs are irrelevant at that point.

Democrats need to rally the base and recruit new voters, not give a shit what rural conservatives voters who will never switch sides think.

  Back to the kneejerkiness. Wont even hear out their other opinions. Wow.

Perhaps, although maybe not exactly the example you described. I myself am pro-M4A, pro-GND, but also pro-2A. So if I saw a candidate like that, I would be quite pleased lol.

 Fair opinion.

Of course, it would depend on exact definition and the extent, but absolutely.

 yay nuance!

-----

That said let's sum it up. What have we learned here? That many liberals are insufferable on social issues, believe compromising on them even slightly is a mortal sin, but hey, on economics? Well, sink or swim. Most liberals seem perfectly willing to throw away any gains had on economics, as long as they can take hard line stances on social issues.

I admit, ultimately I would side with the minority who would say it's complicated. I could compromise on guns and BLM, but abortion is tougher for me. Ultimately it depends on what sacrifices are made, and what is gained from it. Ultimately, if I had to vote for a pro lifer to get medicare for all though, i think i would hold my nose from that. I wouldnt like it, but if I had to think about what the net pros and cons would be, I think i could live with that (and then I would quickly use my free healthcare to get snipped).But yeah. That's why it depends. If you are voting for a literal nazi, I can see the arguments here. But the guy described wasn't even a hard line far righter. He was just your standard rural moderate who has some social red lines themselves but could go for healthcare admittedly. 

Quite frankly, we wouldn't even need to have this discussion if liberals would just support economics more firmly. I admit, the tribalism on the left regarding that is getting annoying too (tired of "socialists" telling me UBI is a neoliberal plot to destroy welfare and undermine the left, shut up, shut up, shut up), but these guys seem like they would give away the farm on economics to avoid even mild concessions on social issues. And that's actually a huge reason why I've shifted as I have as of late. I've kind of reached breaking points with liberals where I simply realize many of them are not my allies and my friends, and our priorities are fundamentally different. I know i've bashed liberals for this kind of behavior on here before, but I'm not sure if people thought i was strawmanning or exaggerating. I'm not. These are all real people. I've even argued with them before. I don't any more because I just got fed up with them and got myself banned intentionally (it was worth it), and yeah, they're a huge reason I've shifted as I have in the past year or two on these issues in the first place. I'm just done. I can respect a nuanced exchange and even differing opinions, but I just despise how categorically anti compromise these guys are on their precious social issues, to the point that merely someone who doesn't care is literally hitler, while on economics they're happy to just give the entire farm away. Sickening.