Is there any political party in America that is socially/morally conservative but economically liberal/leftist?

Sort of like a reverse libertarian?

The main political parties/movements in the USA are the Democratic Party and the Green and various sociaist Parties on the left who generally promote progressive economic policies but libertine social values. The Left universally supports "sexual freedom" and is generally indifferent or even hostile towards religion.

On the Right, the Republican Party and Constitution Party promotes moral conservative values, family values, while being economically oppressive.

The Libertarian wing of the RP, and the LP, promote social liberalism and economic fiscal conservatism.

So the missing component is a party that promotes economic egalitarianism and moral puritanism. For example what sense does it make for Baptist preachers to go to their buddies on Fox News, when Fox is the biggest peddler of "Girls Gone Wild" smut that they are complaining about? Strange bedfellows.

Some Leftwing Christian Democrat parties in Europe promote Social Democrat economics, with Christian morality. And America itself has a long history of Populist rural movements that were far-left economically but Christian puritans socially.

So what is the political party or movement for someone with my values?

The Eric Nemerosky Party right now is a party of one. Maybe you should start it.

Is there any political party in America that is socially/morally conservative but economically liberal/leftist?

Sort of like a reverse libertarian?

The main political parties/movements in the USA are the Democratic Party and the Green and various sociaist Parties on the left who generally promote progressive economic policies but libertine social values. The Left universally supports "sexual freedom" and is generally indifferent or even hostile towards religion.

On the Right, the Republican Party and Constitution Party promotes moral conservative values, family values, while being economically oppressive.

The Libertarian wing of the RP, and the LP, promote social liberalism and economic fiscal conservatism.

So the missing component is a party that promotes economic egalitarianism and moral puritanism. For example what sense does it make for Baptist preachers to go to their buddies on Fox News, when Fox is the biggest peddler of "Girls Gone Wild" smut that they are complaining about? Strange bedfellows.

Some Leftwing Christian Democrat parties in Europe promote Social Democrat economics, with Christian morality. And America itself has a long history of Populist rural movements that were far-left economically but Christian puritans socially.

So what is the political party or movement for someone with my values?

Try the politics section

Is there any political party in America that is socially/morally conservative but economically liberal/leftist?

Sort of like a reverse libertarian?

The main political parties/movements in the USA are the Democratic Party and the Green and various sociaist Parties on the left who generally promote progressive economic policies but libertine social values. The Left universally supports "sexual freedom" and is generally indifferent or even hostile towards religion.

On the Right, the Republican Party and Constitution Party promotes moral conservative values, family values, while being economically oppressive.

The Libertarian wing of the RP, and the LP, promote social liberalism and economic fiscal conservatism.

So the missing component is a party that promotes economic egalitarianism and moral puritanism. For example what sense does it make for Baptist preachers to go to their buddies on Fox News, when Fox is the biggest peddler of "Girls Gone Wild" smut that they are complaining about? Strange bedfellows.

Some Leftwing Christian Democrat parties in Europe promote Social Democrat economics, with Christian morality. And America itself has a long history of Populist rural movements that were far-left economically but Christian puritans socially.

So what is the political party or movement for someone with my values?

That’s a moderate Republican, the one’s who do a lot of infighting with conservatives,(Bush and McCain are partially this direction, but Palin is a conservative, that’s why they went at each others throats after the campaign). As far as a political party though you wont really find one, I’m not trying to give that philosophy, that you mentioned, a bad name, but fascism is kinda in that direction to, but don’t automatically think Moderate Republicans are bad because of that, do some research, it really depends on more specific policy. Hitler wasn’t a pure fascist, he mainly just campaigned as one.

Is there any political party in America that is socially/morally conservative but economically liberal/leftist?

Sort of like a reverse libertarian?

The main political parties/movements in the USA are the Democratic Party and the Green and various sociaist Parties on the left who generally promote progressive economic policies but libertine social values. The Left universally supports "sexual freedom" and is generally indifferent or even hostile towards religion.

On the Right, the Republican Party and Constitution Party promotes moral conservative values, family values, while being economically oppressive.

The Libertarian wing of the RP, and the LP, promote social liberalism and economic fiscal conservatism.

So the missing component is a party that promotes economic egalitarianism and moral puritanism. For example what sense does it make for Baptist preachers to go to their buddies on Fox News, when Fox is the biggest peddler of "Girls Gone Wild" smut that they are complaining about? Strange bedfellows.

Some Leftwing Christian Democrat parties in Europe promote Social Democrat economics, with Christian morality. And America itself has a long history of Populist rural movements that were far-left economically but Christian puritans socially.

So what is the political party or movement for someone with my values?

Im a libertarian, but that sounds like a moderate Republican, the one’s who do a lot of infighting with conservatives,(Bush and McCain are partially this direction, but Palin is a conservative, that’s why they went at each others throats after the campaign). As far as a political party though you wont really find one in the US, I’m not trying to give that philosophy, that you mentioned, a bad name, but fascism is kinda in that direction to, but don’t automatically think Moderate Republicans are bad because of that, do some research, it really depends on more specific policy. Hitler wasn’t a pure fascist, he mainly just campaigned as one.

Is it better to simply philosophically interpret this world as the best of all possible, rather than fighting

Ok so I used to be motivated to fight for Athenian Democracy, Roman Virtue, Puritan ethics, and civic egalitarianism.

But maybe it be better if I just looked at what the pure "form" of Direct Democracy would be and applied it to the events of this world.

Like maybe hook-up culture is democratic because women are more financially equal so men have to use democratic persuasion to hook up. And both men and women have multiple sex partners. It challenges tradition. And is not fixed. Mobile sexuality is democratic.

Or college frats could be seen a mini-democratic councils.

The election of Barack Obama could be seen as fixing all racial problems of the past.

The current economic problems could be seen as the necessary price of globalization leveling the world’s income

I’m sure theres more you can do. And you can make it that no matter who wins, the socialists, conservatives, liberals or libertarians its still a victory for direct democracy. Heck even Fascism can be interpreted as populist democracy, spirit of volk.

Fighting is one of the main interpretations in Philosophy.

Declare war: Conquer yourself.

Good luck!0!

Is it better to simply philosophically interpret this world as the best of all possible, rather than fighting

Ok so I used to be motivated to fight for Athenian Democracy, Roman Virtue, Puritan ethics, and civic egalitarianism.

But maybe it be better if I just looked at what the pure "form" of Direct Democracy would be and applied it to the events of this world.

Like maybe hook-up culture is democratic because women are more financially equal so men have to use democratic persuasion to hook up. And both men and women have multiple sex partners. It challenges tradition. And is not fixed. Mobile sexuality is democratic.

Or college frats could be seen a mini-democratic councils.

The election of Barack Obama could be seen as fixing all racial problems of the past.

The current economic problems could be seen as the necessary price of globalization leveling the world’s income

I’m sure theres more you can do. And you can make it that no matter who wins, the socialists, conservatives, liberals or libertarians its still a victory for direct democracy. Heck even Fascism can be interpreted as populist democracy, spirit of volk.

For a look at democracy of the future:

http://www.bahai.com/thebahais/pg41.htm

Egalitarianism in the United States involves equality of:
education.
property.
opportunity.
wealth.
condition

Which of these is not a challenge to democracy?
Limited participation in government.
Changes in the American political culture.
Escalating campaign costs.
Diverse political interests.
Increased technical expertise.

Which of these is the pluralist theory?
A fundamental principle of traditional democratic theory in which by choosing among alternatives, the majority’s desire is respected.
A theory of government and politics contending that groups are so strong that government is weakened.
A system of selecting policymakers and organizing government so that policy represents and responds to the public’s preferences.
A theory of government and politics emphasizing that politics is mainly a competition among groups each pressing for its own preferred politics.
A theory of government and politics contending that societies are divided among class lines and that an upper-class group will rule.

The relationship between the few leaders and the many followers is known as __________.
the elite and class theory of government.
hyperpluralism.
representation.
limited participation.
democracy.

What is the role of the media in the policymaking system?
To win elections.
To ensure that their members’ concerns receive appropriate political attention.
To ensure that policies are being followed.
To allow citizens the chance to make their opinions heard by choosing their public officials.
To investigate and inform people

Egalitarianism in the United States involves equality of:
opportunity

Which of these is not a challenge to democracy?
Increased technical expertise

Which of these is the pluralist theory?
A theory of government and politics emphasizing that politics is mainly a competition among groups each pressing for its own preferred politics.

What is the role of the media in the policymaking system?
To investigate and inform people

I would greatly appreciate the help.
below is a list of all the letters i came up with a word for. i need help finding words for the ones i left blank.
and also, the word DOES NOT have to start with that letter, i am aloud to use the letter in a word since it’s kind of hard to find words for "X, Y, and Z" most of the time. so the letter can be in the word if you cant find anything.
thank you, and good luck.
for example
A. Anti-religious
B. Benito Mussolini
C. Communism
D. Disaster
E. Egalitarianism
F. Fascism
G.
H.
I. Italy
J.
K.
L. Liberals
M. Militarist
N.
O.
P. Police Spies
Q.
R.
S. Social Democratic Party
T. Totalitarian
U.
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.

R. Regimentation
X. Axis Powers (if you’re doing anything with WWII)

Hmmmm, this is hard.

Nepal ended 239 years of royal rule last year, making the Shah dynasty the latest monarchy to tumble. Nepal became a republic soon after. The last time a monarchy was abolished was in May 2007 when Samoa’s king died. There are currently 30 monarchs reigning over 44 extant sovereign monarchies in the world. As we have reached the 21st Century, many people now view monarchy as an archaic system and should have no place in modern society. And even the democratic constitutional ceremonial monarchies are very fragile and in threat of their survival. Because in the 21st century, a political institution, monarchy, which has been around since preliterate man, is on the verge of extinction. In an age of democracy, it is hierarchic; in an age of egalitarianism, it is elitist; in an age of skepticism, it is mystical. So tell me, Do You think it’s time for the remaining monarchies of the World to be abolish and if so, why? Please! I want a straight forward yes or no answer and why. And NOT just that "THEY’RE TRADITION THEY SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE" I NEED A BETTER ANSWER THAN THAT!

Can you debunk these arguments, for all monarchies in general, both absolute AND constitutional:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Arguments_in_favour_of_a_republic

1. Monarchy is the opposite of democracy

2. Monarchy denies the people a basic right

3. Monarchy devalues a governmental system

4. The monarchy is religiously discriminatory

5. Monarchy is gender-discriminative

6. A monarchy demands deference

7. A monarchy is the enemy of merit and aspiration

8. It devalues intellect and achievement

9. It harms the monarchs themselves

10. Monarchs are not impartial, and lack accountability

11. The monarchy is expensive

12. The monarchy makes the nation look backwards

13. The monarchy doesn’t represent the country and it’s culture
And please no "it’s up to the people in these countries to decide" I have heard about these nations, and they want republics. I want to know what YOU think.

No!

May I ask whether your country is a monarchy? If not, why do you care?

I couldn’t help noticing that on the same page you cite there are also arguments in favour of monarchy. In the interests of balance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Arguments_in_favour_of_constitutional_monarchy

To answer you comments:
1. Over 70% of people in the UK want to keep the monarchy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7967142.stm

In many countries, such as Australia, there are frequent referendums on whether to keep the monarchy or not. Also, most monarchies these days are powerless and it is the elected politicians who run the country.

2. It is a fundamental right of all people to elect the people who run their nation. As stated above, this happens in most every modern monarchy as it is the elected Parliament and Prime Minister who hold all legislative and executive power – not the monarch.

3. Far from devalues a governmental system, a non-political head of state offers a safeguard against government instability. This is not just political theory, it has been proved in the real world. In the 1981 April Fool’s Day Coup in Thailand and the El Tejerazo coup in Spain when King Bhumibol and King Juan Carlos I respectively stepped in to restore democracy in their countries after military coups.

4. Not all monarchies are religiously discriminatory. The British monarch is also head of the church of England so can’t be of another faith.

5. The sexism in the British monarchy hasn’t been an issue for almost 60 years. Equality of both sexes is being discussed now. It is little different to many other industries, companies and government departments which have only moved away from gender-discrimination in recent decades.

6. The monarchy embodies the nation and so is treated with respect, but then so are elected Presidents. Look at how the deference the President is given in the US.

7. and 8. Through the honours system, the monarchy rewards the intellectual, social and charitable achievement of the nation’s people.

9. This is no different from every political leader, both elected and unelected. The public eye is harmful, it always has been.

10. Monarchs have to be impartial, and if they are not they can be removed by Parliament (and are thus accountable to the people’s representatives). The British Parliament has removed a monarch from the thrown before – in 1688 – and it could do it again.

11. The British monarch is one of the cheapest heads of state in the world. The Royal family cost the British tax payer just £.0.69 per person per year – a bargain if you ask me!

12. The monarchy gives a sense of continuity and tradition of which many counties of the world are envious. You shouldn’t underestimate the importance of continuity and the prestige it gives the nation.

13. The UK monarchy represents culture, history, pomp and ceremony. What could be more representative of Britain than that? Also, Queen Elizabeth II is one of the most respected and admired people in the world. To quote President Obama "I think what the Queen stands for and her decency and her civility, what she represents, is very important."

Our teacher is teaching us all these dystopian novels about socialism and strict-egalitarianism (i.e "The Giver", "Harrison Bergeron") telling us socialism goes against human nature. I’ve also never heard the names Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Leon Trotsky, Eugene V. Debs, or Georgi Plekhanov spoken by the teacher, and the other kids have never read "The State and Revolution", "Principles of the Social Democratic Party of America", or "The Communist Manifesto". I’ve also never heard her tell us where socialism WAS successful and why it was there (i.e. Catalonia and Paris).
So, I was planning on confronting her on this and telling her if she was gonna teach us one political view she might as well also teach the other to give us a balance, but I’m afraid she’ll accuse MY parents of indoctriantion (even though I’m strictly communist, my dad is a democrat, and my mom is a Green) and pick on me as "dirty commie". Should I confront her first or sue her first. I already talked to my parents about it and they said I should confront the principle anonymously. Thanks!
Also, to the last person:
1. We all hate ramblers.
2. If you were reading clearly, you’d notice I am refferencing Catalonia, Plekhanov, and Trotsky, and am clearly not a Stalinist.
3. Are you an anarchist or capitalist? Please type clearly.
Black Jesus, thanks for your advice, but I’ve tried that multiple times and she either cuts me off, claims I am disrespecting her, or says "don’t correct the teacher [no matter how much of an asshole she may be]".
And the people saying stuff like "No cos you’re a minor" or "She comes up with the curriculum", I mean my parents could sue her (even though I’m not gonna do that now), and plus, you can’t teach one certain political ideology in a classroom without teaching the other side, and last time I checked anti-communism is a political ideology.

I would do the mature thing and speak with her directly. Talk in a mature respectful manner. Explain to her that you would appreciate it if she would also teach about other political points of views.

If in the end she refuses, then I would go to the principal.

~~Donna~~