The two tend to go together, though it is far from a hard and fast rule. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 04/02/2012 11:56:26 PM
Social conservatism may be linked to lower IQ in some cases, but I think it's probably unfair to say that there is no merit to social conservatism as a result. I'm not a social conservative, but it doesn't mean they can't have compelling arguments.
Anything is possible, but, unless they are very biased, an argument that fails to sway most intelligent people is not very compelling.
As for fiscal conservatism, the article says nothing about it, but certainly the more fiscally conservative one tends to be, the more wealthy one tends to be...
The articles silence on fiscal conservatism is surely no coincidence. That said, I disagree fiscal conservatism tends to wealth. Not only are most US fiscal conservatives not wealthy, but I dare say the percentage of wealthy Americans who are fiscally liberal exceeds that percentage among the middle class (and greatly exceeds it among the lower class.) The more fiscally conservative one is, the more likely one is POOR, but voting against ones own interests due to ignorance and/or bigotry.
Wealth often fosters fiscal conservatism, not the reverse. Freedom of choice is predicated on freedom of means; "choice" without means is simply desire denied, Fords "any color you like as long as it is black." Absent exceptional growth in national wealth, widespread upward mobility is mathematically impossible without proportional wealth redistribution. Whether natural or artificial, those with great existing wealth understandably tend to find that threatening.
Fiscal conservatism encourages social; the only question is whether the latter is intentional or incidental. In fact, it is often hard to separate fiscal and social liberalism, because the social policy is usually impractical without fiscal backing. Thus many wealthy social conservatives support local laws against various behavior they routinely travel elsewhere to indulge. The classic example has been discussed enough the past few days, so I will revert to my personal favorite: Arthur Finkelstein made a career electing NY Republicans who tirelessly fought gay marriage, but married his 20 year boyfriend in MA, where they and their adopted children live.
When closely examined, the culture and class wars are almost inextricable because, whatever nominal freedom exists, EXERCISING it is usually more a matter of assets and income than of law. Unfortunately, those fairly liberated by that system rarely confront and therefore rarely see its flaws, and calls for more opportunity are met with concerns for their wallets. Nothing illustrates that better than people who have insisted for decades that taxes are too high recently demanding tax hikes for the 50% of America owing (and consequently paying) no income tax. Working class America did not start the class war; they are just trying to survive it.
Ultimately, we return to the question we thought answered in 1865: Do property rights trump human rights, and should they take precedence when their inception created a conflict? Since ITS inception the GOP has side-stepped that question, making the Civil War about limiting states rights and the unions insolubility (anathema to all Founding Fathers, including Jefferson and Madison.) I do not know how—or if—they will answer it. Since 1964 the answer has increasingly been that sufficient wealth ensures members of any minority de facto liberty, and they can be blamed for the disenfranchisement of white males thereby induced to slit their own throats.