In today’s political climate, it can feel like every opinion comes with a label attached. You’re either liberal or conservative; a Democrat, Republican, or Independent — but what happens when your beliefs don’t fit into one box? Historically, older generations have used the phrase “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” to describe a political identity that supports progressive social policies while favoring more conservative economic principles. But does it still hold up?
With origins stemming from the 1930s New Deal era, the label generally describes people who support social issues such as abortion access, LGBTQ+ rights, racial equality, and protections against discrimination, while also favoring lower taxes, limited government spending, and a smaller role for the government in the economy. Historically, this combination of beliefs has been associated with libertarians and independent voters who don’t necessarily align with either major political party. However, as political conversations continue to evolve online, so do the questions surrounding these labels, especially among Gen Z, a generation navigating an increasingly polarized political landscape. According to the newest group of voters, can someone really support progressive social change while holding conservative economic views?
In an August 2026 survey about the midterm elections, Her Campus asked our audience of Gen Z women, primarily college students and recent graduates, about the phrase and how it resonates with their own political beliefs.
To Many Gen Zers, The Stance Is Contradictory.
One of the most common sentiments among the survey responses was that social and fiscal policies are too interconnected to properly separate. A 23-year-old from Maryland called the position a “B.S. oxymoron,” arguing that “you can’t support marginalized communities while also not wanting your taxes to help fund programs that help those communities.” A 27-year-old from Colorado similarly questioned the distinction. “It feels disingenuous,” they wrote in the survey. “Put your money where your values supposedly are. How can you support women but defund Planned Parenthood? How can you be a queer ally and vote for budgets blocking access to gender-affirming care?”
For many respondents, decisions about taxes, social programs, and public services directly affect the social issues they care about. “If you want people to receive the necessary assistance they need socially, it requires people to pool money in the form of taxes,” a 21-year-old from Wyoming wrote in the survey. A 21-year-old from Missouri captured the tension by stating, “It is hard to separate social versus fiscal, because the budgets, taxes, and spending, they all do affect the social environment such as health care.” Some respondents took this argument a step further, such as a 27-year-old from Texas, who wrote, “I feel like finances could be a human rights issue.”
Some Gen Zers See No Issue.
On the other hand, some respondents said they could understand this way of identifying, or even personally identified with it themselves. “I agree that I want people to be able to practice whatever their beliefs and choices are without government control,” a 23-year-old from Illinois explained. “I also want the government to continue federally supported financial assistance programs, but I want them to focus on reallocating taxpayer dollars to actually put them towards what the civilians want.” A 21-year-old from New York similarly viewed the position as reasonable, stating, “I think it is a valid position to have since social issues don’t always have to be intertwined with economic issues.”
Other respondents echoed the idea that supporting economic priorities doesn’t always mean dismissing social issues. “I totally understand because that’s exactly how I feel,” a 19-year-old from Connecticut wrote. “We need to focus on the economy, but everyone deserves to be loved and treated fairly.” An 18-year-old from Michigan described the phrase as “a respectable position,” adding, “I don’t care about your money or your general beliefs on how government should work; I care about your morals.”
For some respondents, this stance validates their beliefs that political views don’t always have to fit neatly into one ideological category. An 18-year-old from Arizona said they saw the position as a way of evaluating “both of the most popular parties to understand their views and alignments with each, as opposed to following one view completely.”
Is It Actually a Political Middle Ground?
For some Gen Zers, the phrase seems to represent a position somewhere between the two major political ideologies in the U.S. “I think most people are in the middle and I think this statement just encompasses that,” says a 20-year-old from Florida. A 25-year-old from New York simply described people who use the label as “moderates.” Others connected the position to libertarianism or political independence, with a 23-year-old from Pennsylvania saying, “I generally think they’re libertarian,” while a 23-year-old from Illinois described people with the position as having “one foot in and one foot out of each party.”
Some respondents question how these beliefs translate into voting decisions when economic and social priorities differ. A 24-year-old from Ohio says, “It’s an easy answer, and I understand the reasoning behind that position. However, you can be both of those things, but one choice in voting may diminish the other.” This raises another question for people who identify with both positions: If they believe in both economic and social priorities, which do they ultimately feel more strongly about when deciding how to vote?
Several respondents suggested that people who describe themselves using this phrase may actually hold more conservative beliefs, but feel uncomfortable fully identifying as conservative. “They say that they’re liberal to save face but they vote and believe in conservative policies,” a 22-year-old from Delaware wrote. A 20-year-old from Virginia agreed, stating, “I think that they often lean more conservative, and don’t always necessarily have actual socially liberal interests at heart.”
Ultimately, what the statement means comes down to personal interpretation. A 20-year-old from Texas explained, “My [response to] this when someone tells me this is, ‘You need to explain in your own words,’ because everyone has their own definition and meaning. The statement’s too broad.” And maybe that’s the biggest takeaway: Political identity isn’t always as simple as choosing a label.