Cory Booker is known for many things. As mayor of Newark, N.J., he has shoveled an elderly man’s driveway, rescued a woman from a burning building, and saved a dog left out in the cold: all commendable activities, to be sure. However, his persistent good deeds seem to have obscured his surprisingly conservative stances on political issues.

Booker announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate two months ago, hoping to fill the seat currently occupied by veteran Democrat Frank Lautenberg. It was a strange move to say the least, since at that time Lautenberg hadn’t even decided whether he would seek re-election; he just announced his decision to retire last week. Booker provided no rationale for challenging a sitting member of his own party, leaving voters to assume that it was his turn to be in the Senate, rather than the 89-year-old Lautenberg.

I am naturally suspicious when candidates challenge incumbents without a stated policy difference or charge of incompetency. In my view, this leaves only two explanations for Booker’s motives: either he does have strong views on federal policy that he prefers to keep under the radar, or, like many politicians, he has an inflated ego. I’m inclined to believe that both apply in this case.

A disturbing aspect of Booker’s record first came to light for much of the public last May, when on “Meet the Press” Booker condemned President Obama’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital.

“This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides,” Booker said. “It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity.”

It was subsequently noted in the press that Booker had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from financial industry figures. A further examination of Booker’s views yields another disquieting fact.

“We need to cut government spending,” Booker stated during an appearance at Saint Anselm College in 2011. “Let me repeat, we need to cut government spending.”

This bluntly anti-Keynesian declaration, along with Booker’s cozy relationship with Wall Street, should surely worry New Jersey Democrats as they choose their Senate standard-bearer.

So how does a fiscal conservative and defender of the much-reviled finance industry remain so popular among both the media and Democratic voters? In part, because of the aforementioned heroic personal actions he’s taken in Newark.

Another important reason is Booker’s strong stance as a social liberal. I applaud his well-articulated views on marriage equality and abortion rights, but liberal voters should be careful not to forget the much wider range of issues on which senators legislate. In the 2012 presidential election, discussion of social issues often seemed to eclipse more substantive debate on the nation’s economic policy. Politicians like Booker who portray themselves as solid liberals can avoid having to clarify murky policy positions that do not necessarily square with their broader progressive image.

Booker’s potential rise to power signals a worrying trend in the Democratic Party. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, often cited as a future presidential contender, has slashed the state budget dramatically, to the extent that he’s known in some progressive circles as “Chris Christie plus gay marriage,” according to an anonymous source on Politico.com.

The prominence and apparent success of Democratic figures like these perhaps indicates a return to the Clintonian values of gutting welfare and supporting financial deregulation. In the Senate, where progressive Democrats routinely find themselves outnumbered, it is even more important that New Jersey, a solid blue state, elects a worthy successor to stalwart liberal Frank Lautenberg.