I would argue that one cannot simultaneously be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Social liberals uniformly support the massive welfare state that threatens our very existence as a nation. The debt is now larger than GDP. Let that sink in. Not only that, but the way that the government figures its debt would get any CFO thrown in jail. The government chooses to use a cash-based instead of an accrual-based system to hide the truth. If they used the accrual-based system, the debt would be over $96 trillion (or over 5X GDP), as opposed to the $18 trillion widely reported. $96 trillion represents over $800K per citizen (including children).
Fiscal conservatism means living within our means, instead of this massive intergenerational theft.
There is no theft. Money is created as needed. It doesn't need to be repaid, just rolled over. Indeed, it cannot be repaid. Under the Federal Reserve system money is debt. If you want to eliminate the debt, you will eliminate the money.
Once you see how money is really created, you will see that the debate over the debt and its size is really beside the point. The point is that all dollars are borrowed into existence, while the money to pay the interest is not. So we will never eliminate the debt; it will keep growing as long as the money supply grows, which it must to stay ahead of the interest on the debt. If that sounds inherently unstable and destined to crash at some point, I'd agree with you.