SoCon/Economic Left parties

[politicus]

I am not sure, this is the right thread, but Ive been wondering:

Why are there so relatively few parties (in multi party systems) covering the social conservative/ economic left position?

Social liberal/Economic left and SoCon/Economic Right are the standard combos.
Economic Right/ Social Liberal is fairly common - half the Liberal parties  in Europe belong to this group.
But SoCon/ Economic Left almost never seems to get off the ground. It is a fairly large group of people who have that combination of beliefs in most Western societies, especially among blue collar workers, so why doesn't it "produce" more parties?

(I know you could argue, that some SocDem parties are somewhat SoCon, but still, this is not "the real deal".)

[politicus]

The idea that the quadrant that some on-line quizzes use is the nec plus ultra in terms of accurately describing the possible ideological positions one could take within a given context, is obviously a little bit misguided.

That said, the Christian Democratic parties of Western Europe are traditionally dedicated to 'achieving the goals of the Left trough the means of the Right.'

A little condescending...

The idea that you can place ideological positions along a socio-economic and a valuebased axis is derived from political science and not invented by internet posters. It covers most of the ideological positions of modern Western politics and is a useful descriptive and analytical  tool.

Regarding the right wing populism with a genuinely left wing economic policy it is actually quite rare. A Danish trade unionist Preben Møller Hansen established a party with this combination called "Common Course" in the late 80s (he was a sailor by trade), but never got more than about 3-4% in the polls, when the party was most popular. You could probably find other examples, but none that I can think of top of my head, so it cant be that many.

Christian Democrats are almost always centre-right on economics in practice. So again, not the "real deal". FF in Ireland fits the bill slightly better, but where too centrist on economics even in their most leftwing periods.

[politicus]

The political compass is one of the worst things to ever happen to political discourse. People should really stop trying to make it apply to real life.

This is not about some damn internet compass. It is about the two axis - the value based  and the socio-economic, that political scientists use to describe attitudes to political issues. If you combine them you get four positions. This distinnction is based on polling of people. So real life opinions translate into the four positions. Not the other way round. Stop this internet compass nonsense.

[politicus]

What you call social issues are usually just part of politics to the extent that they are important for identity. In fact, I'd say the US is one of relatively few places (in the West at least) where this is an important part of the political divide.

Immigration and law and order plays this role in most European countries with a clear divide between hardliners and softies. Preferring a tough line on those issues is certainly important for the identity of many working class males.

I don't know enough about Sweden to say if you fit this pattern, but in Denmark the divide between "social"/value based issues and socioeconomic ones is very clear. A party like Det Radikale Venstre (Social Liberals) is basically a club for those that are left wing on value based issues and right wing on economics, while the Danish Peoples Party is the exact opposite.

[politicus]

What you call social issues are usually just part of politics to the extent that they are important for identity. In fact, I'd say the US is one of relatively few places (in the West at least) where this is an important part of the political divide.

Immigration and law and order plays this role in most European countries with a clear divide between hardliners and softies. Preferring a tough line on those issues is certainly important for the identity of many working class males.

I don't know enough about Sweden to say if you fit this pattern, but in Denmark the divide between "social"/value based issues and socioeconomic ones is very clear. A party like Det Radikale Venstre (Social Liberals) is basically a club for those that are left wing on value based issues and right wing on economics, while the Danish Peoples Party is the exact opposite.

Is the DFP as pro-welfare as made out to be ? After all, they backed the right's economic policies pretty loyally.

Most of the time the Conservative-Liberal VK government wasnt particulary right wing on welfare issues, but its true that DPP voted for some cuts in the final phase of the government to keep it in power, since they knew their influence would more or less disappaer if it fell. Of course all right wing populists prioritize value issues/social issues above welfare, but DPPs principal position is "old school" social democratic welfare policies, which attracts a lot of unskilled workers, who agree with them on immigration and "law and order".

I am not saying they are not hypocritical to a certain degree.

[politicus]

The right-wing position in Denmark, IIRC, is to NOT raise the highest tax rate in the whole world. So supporting that isn't particularly right-wing.

That depends on whether you use the economic or the value-based scale to determine the left / right dichotomy.

But I agree that the term right wing populism is rather meaningless. If thats your point.
In Denmark people from the old Fremskridtspartiet, which was Libertarian, changed rather effortlessly into Social Democrats/welfare populists shortly after the founding of DFP in 1995. Which shows that economic policies are not central to those types.

[politicus]

It seems like Fiscally centrist/Socially Conservative is much more common.

Definitely true in Western countries, but hardly correct in the rest of the world.