This was somewhat inspired by Hal's post on conservative atheists which got me thinking about how the two major parties identify themselves and the divide that exists between social policy and economic policy.
The republicans and democrats often only support candidates that back the party's entire agenda ( ie republican candidates must be socially and economically conservative and democratic candidates socially and economically liberal). so those votes who are liberal on one side and conservative on the other are forced to make a tough decision.
as a socially conservative individual do you ever feel torn between your desires for social reform (banning homosexual marriage, increasing regulations on inappropriate material on television, banning abortion, keeping drugs illegal, etc) and your economic needs (a desire for universal health care or better funding for public schools)? I have noticed that it often seems that those in our society who are most affected by public education standards and general assistance are often convinced to vote for candidates who do not support these programs because such conservative candidates represent the socially conservative views that these voters hold. often voters feel obligated to place their moral or religious views above their personal needs.
there are also voters who favor liberal social policies (free access to abortion, legalization of drugs use, marriage for all, no government regulation on sexual practices, etc) but balk at liberal economic policy (ie, higher taxes, more publicly funded programs, etc ). this group usually includes most members of the libertarian party who favor minimal government intervention in personal life. since the libertarian party has yet to make much of a mark on the national scale I wonder how its members make a choice in a national election.
I wonder how members of each group have dealt with the frustration that arises from being asking to choose between your social and economic views.
Discuss.
