Originally Posted by
haveacigar
It's because so much of the conservative platform involves playing to their constituents' morality on "how things should be." You shouldn't give welfare because they didn't earn that money. Rich people shouldn't be taxed more because they shouldn't be punished for success. Government shouldn't borrow money because regular people can't. It can be a very compelling message, especially someone that lives in a more sparsely-populated area. When you live in a small town, the necessity of government isn't as readily apparent, and so people hear their conception of "how things should be" reinforced, and they buy in.
On an intellectual level, it's obviously not very logical. Government needs to respond realities, and it can't govern effectively if it is simply trying to conform it's actions with what people considered "fair" in other contexts and in other time frames. Wholly separate from whether conservatives actually govern in conformance with those morality plays (we all know people win elections on rhetoric and not results, and that both parties generally are just figuring out ways to get theirs, but I digress), the sooner we get morality plays out of general policy conversations, the better.
Now, you won't ever take morals out of debates on abortion, gay marriage, or other issues that implicate religion, and that's fine. But when talking about anything invoking money--be it tax policy, social security, industrial subsidies, restrictions on credit, welfare, health care, etc.--there is simply no reason to argue about something being fair or not fair. Both sides are at fault, because while conservatives love to make the arguments, you get plenty of liberals willing to engage it. Cries about class warfare are stupid either way. When you talk about progressive income tax, it has nothing to do with punishing the rich. Progressive income tax does not exist to be Robin Hood. The reason you place a higher tax burden on the wealthy is because it's the best way to maximize government revenue without damaging the economy. Taking money from someone who already has more money than they can and will prudently spend doesn't implicate economic growth the way that taking money from someone with an average income would. Similarly, giving people welfare seems like free money for someone who doesn't earn it, but it's still a good investment because otherwise that same person would likely resort to crime to make ends meet, ending up in the criminal justice system and costing the government far more to handle.
Reply With Quote
