As I believe we’ve discussed around here a few times, there are few more weasily formulations in American politics than “I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative.” As I’ve said before, there’s nothing morally wrong with being fiscally conservative and socially liberal in the sense that it is an honorable spot on the political spectrum, no matter how confused it may be. My objection is when liberals tell me they’re socially liberal but fiscally conservative as a way to find common ground between us. It’s usually said with the spirit of triangulation (“I’m not one of those liberals who actually has the courage of their convictions!”) and the fetishization of centrism (“I’m so smart I can pick the best of both sides! Me-ism is the best!”) and they’ve done almost no serious thinking about what it means to be SLBFC (See Derb on this issue here).
But it seems to me that for all the discussion of Bush’s Big Government Conservatism (See Dionne discussion below or a few hundred articles by yours truly, Ramesh, Kate et al), I don’t think I’ve ever seen Bushism described with the simple and direct “Socially Conservative but Fiscally Liberal” tag. It seems to capture it perfectly, no? Though since everything’s been said already on the internet, I’m sure someone has said it before.