Opinion of "Fiscally conservative, but socially liberal"

[TJ in Oregon]

Don't agree on much, but really the main beef here is that the media has spent the last decade pretending they are the only type of swing voter in existence. That whole paradigm helped to push the GOP into its current nihilistic breakdown: throwing out all interests except those who make up ~5% of the country and whose interests are seen as malevolent for the majority of Republican voters isn't a good recipe for success.

[TJ in Oregon]

Despicable, nihlistic, and overall disgusting. Needs to be purged from American politics.

Wait, where does nihilism come into play?

The concept of being "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" usually entails the rejection of principle and altruistic morality. This is not always the case, but the current strand of this ideology is certainly nihilistic in nature.

That's a very simplistic way of putting Nihilism into terms, and is more similar to a misinterpretation of Nietzsche's individualism than what actual Nihilism is. We must also remember that FCSLs tend to overly moralize, simply with a false sense of individualism, much like you and other "socially conservative" leftists tend to overly moralize with a false sense of "Community."

You're right. I can admit that my knowledge of Nihilism is limited to a reading of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Ecce Homo many, many moons ago. I can see your point that both FCSLs and Communitarians like myself do have a tendency to overly moralize political issues, but I wouldn't go as far to say that it is a false sense of "individualism" or "community" driving it.

I would argue the bolded is actually impossible: all political issues are moral issues, at least in an abstract sense. I would never deny the existence of prudential decisions or honest disagreement about the effects of various policies, but the aims in enacting whatever each side views as good must contain some moral component to it. If say, candidate A says we need to preserve food stamps because if we cut it then people will starve, then candidate A is making both a claim that cutting the program would lead to a difficulty for poor people to get food, and that it would be a bad thing for people to starve. The latter point may be completely uncontroversial and generally not stated in a political debate, but it is still a moral argument.