David Boaz writes, “The GOPAC study shows us that lots more Americans think of themselves as fiscal conservatives than as social conservatives. That’s a result that Ramesh Ponnuru, who regularly argues that Republicans win more votes on social conservatism than on economic conservatism, might ponder.” Actually, what I regularly do is point out that Boaz’s “libertarian vote” theory is full of holes, none of which he ever tries to fill in.

But in any case, the study Boaz cites does not challenge anything I’ve written. There’s no contradiction, paradox, or even tension between the claims that “there are more fiscal than social conservatives” and that “social conservatism yields more votes for Republicans than fiscal conservatism does.” If the percentage of self-described “social conservatives” who actually want to ban most abortions is much higher than the percentage of self-described “fiscal conservatives” who actually want to cut spending, and vote that way, then what Boaz said and what I say can both be true.

I suppose it’s not my place to tell an executive at a libertarian think tank what libertarianism means or entails, but I think he does a disservice to libertarianism by reducing it to “fiscal conservatism” plus “social liberalism.” It isn’t clear to me — or to pro-life libertarians — that the socially liberal position on abortion is more libertarian than the pro-life position; and I suspect that those “fiscally conservative social liberals” are keener on gun control than other voter groups.