If you haven’t been following my recent posts, I am in the midst of advocating for a third or alternative party that, in very general terms, would be socially conservative while combating economic inequality and social injustice with a more active role of the government in the economy. In my last post, I said that for this party to be successful, people on the Right would have to be convinced that a single-minded focus on limited government is misguided and unhelpful, so here is my attempt to do that convincing. I have no particular agenda and don’t actually know why I am doing so other than my belief that such a party or ideological movement could improve the political, social, and economic conditions in this country, but is unpopular in today’s political environment. It seems that conservatism and the political Right in our country have become synonymous with limited or small government, and my goal in this post is to challenge this prevailing mentality.

My intended audience is anyone on the Right or near it, anyone who might consider themselves conservative, Republican, right-leaning, or anything like it, or who is drawn to arguments in favor of limited government, personal responsibility, or traditional values. I hope to persuade you that a party can support and advance many of the principles you may believe in without pursing limited or small government as an end goal. For some people, this is obviously a non-starter as their ultimate political goal is a small federal government, or their own definition of conservatism is the pursuit of that goal. Though I may not convince such people, I hope to persuade the rest of you that this is counterproductive to many other conservative values.

Let me start by building on some beliefs which I share with many people on the Right. I typically eschew political labels of any kind, but sometimes am hesitantly willing to call myself conservative for the following reasons. First, I believe that the Constitution was an inspired document that changed the course of human history for the better, despite its shortcomings and the imperfections of the people who created it, but that no political system, rules, or laws can successfully govern a society without moral principles instilled through family and social institutions. I believe that the best and sometimes only true solutions to many of the problems we face as a country come from strong families, and that no government policy should ever erode the family institution. Second, I believe that people are and must be responsible and accountable for their own choices, and that government policy should not undermine this principle. Third, I believe a foundational principle of our country is that people must have an equal opportunity for success as they choose to define it, but that does not always mean outcomes will be equal. Thus, while I will advocate for substantial programs that try to address systematic inequality, I do not believe that the government should have a role in balancing wealth between economic classes. Fourth, I believe that business, industry, and entrepreneurship are the foundation of economic prosperity, and that the opportunity to obtain wealth from these pursuits must be protected by government policy while recognizing the inherent danger of greed unchecked by proper regulation. Lastly, I believe that the government should operate with the same character, integrity, and prudence that we should expect of an individual, and thus should avoid excessive deficits that require us to borrow from future generations. These beliefs constitute what I personally define as my socially conservative values.

Many people who share these beliefs come to the conclusion that the government needs to have as little role as possible in our economic life, and I sympathize but ultimately disagree with this conclusion. Based on similar beliefs I personally am an advocate for a significant increase in government spending on education, a greater role for the federal government in health care, and substantial social welfare and insurance programs. I also strongly believe that racial and other inequalities in our country demonstrate that we have not lived up to the Constitutional promise of equal opportunity, and believe our government has a moral responsibility to try to solve these problems through substantial investments that can help eliminate the generational cycles that perpetuate systemic inequalities. I will not, at the present, defend in detail these preferences but rather argue that they are not in opposition to a conservative political agenda.

Before I go further, let me reiterate my support for balanced budgets. I have stated before my belief that we should limit or avoid federal deficits, with possible occasional exceptions in times of recession or war. I am advocating for responsible public spending on social programs, not excessive deficit spending. The only way to be a proponent of social programs and balanced budgets, which I am, is to be supportive of taxes, which I am, but almost no one else is and this is why I think it is so difficult to get public support for the kind of policies and programs that would actually improve our country. Anyone who has ever fought to get funding for a school knows how incredibly frustrating and difficult it is to get people to pay for one of the most important services government can provide. Rarely, if ever, do we hear a political leader from either party say something to the extent of, “to solve this problem, we need everyone to make a greater public contribution,” though I think this is the real solution for many issues. In addition, I think that when increased revenue is necessary, it is not unreasonable to ask those who have been most successful – through a combination of hard work, luck, and an economic system that supports them – to pay a greater share than those who are struggling to get ahead.

Before you accuse me of class warfare, let me clarify that while I would support increased and/or more progressive taxes to fund broader government programs, I am not advocating for a classically leftist economic policy. Some see the political continuum as the rich/capitalist class on the right and the poor/worker class on the left battling over the distribution of wealth (this appears to be the academic distinction of choice). I am not arguing for pure redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor that might be associated with the left side of this theoretical spectrum, but rather suggesting that those who benefit most from our economic system should fund programs that create opportunities and incentives for others to succeed. I do not believe it is helpful to think in terms of economic class with one group in conflict with another. To me, conservatism means challenging policies that try to identify fixed economic classes and redistribute wealth among them, but supporting policies that create opportunity where it is lacking. Our focus should be on ensuring social/economic mobility where everyone has an incentive and opportunity to achieve the benefits of a free market economy.

But isn’t small government, less spending, and pure economic freedom the core of conservatism? How could you possibly be conservative and want more social programs or consider higher taxes? The answer to these questions obviously depends on how you define conservatism, but my definition described above does not set any arbitrary limit on government expenditures. My conservative values demand that government fulfill its Constitutional role to, “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Sometimes (or always) performing these tasks requires revenue, and so long as the government obtains that revenue at the consent of the governed, my conservative values are not in conflict with any particular tax or government spending rate. These values do not require me to argue against all government interference, economic influence, or legitimate taxation, but rather to advocate for a government role that is based in morality, promotes equal opportunities, and performs its Constitutional duties in a way that does not undermine personal accountability or the family institution.

I believe that promoting tranquility, justice, and the general welfare, as the Constitution dictates, necessitates that the government actively engages in the world economy and deals with the growing epidemic of inequality; and I think it is in the interest of conservatives to support this effort in a way that aligns with their values. This view probably conflicts with a subset of the current political Right who believe that any new government involvement in the economy is inherently bad. Some might argue that inequality is the natural consequence of freedom and responsibility. I agree that a normal distribution of income from rich to poor is an unavoidable consequence of a just and free system, but the empirical realities of how income and wealth are distributed in our country do not reflect justice or equal opportunity. There is both a growing gap between the rich and the rest and continuing racial inequalities that have not improved since segregation was still legal. This is not a normal distribution attributable solely to personal choices, but rather a reflection of an economic system that gives greater opportunities to certain groups. This year’s election makes it apparent these issues are extremely important to voters in both parties. As I have previously discussed, both Trump and Sanders have gained support by focusing on those who have been left behind in today’s economy, and both have proposed popular measures that are at odds with at least my conservative values, focusing on government protection rather than a strategy that enables and incentivizes Americans to be more competitive in the global economy. The political Right in our country cannot keep ignoring those who are falling further behind, and this is why I think the ideology of small government as a primary end is hindering the broader conservative goals. Many who share my socially conservative worldview feel that they cannot support a party whose solution for these inequalities is for the government to do nothing. We cannot believe in individual opportunity and then retreat from a global market where success is increasingly determined by factors outside an individual’s control – like having the right parents and being born in the right zip code. If we want conservatism to have a future, we must not oppose all government, but find ways to make it solve problems in accordance with our values – even if that means raising taxes and investing in our children’s future¹If you’re interested, please take a look at the book Why the Right Went Wrong, for a more in-depth analysis of how and why the Right has become so attached to an extreme and unyielding disdain for government. A few relevant quotes: “The Trump movement…ought to wake Republicans and conservatives up to the challenges they face…They will need to respond far more creatively and substantively to the seething unhappiness among the Republican Party’s long-suffering working class supporters” (p. 439), “A turn toward moderation and an embrace of those who have been left out–these are the tasks essential to the conservative future” (p. 468), “To end the cycle of disappointment and betrayal, conservatives will…have to accept in practice what many acknowledge in theory: that to be successful and grow, a market economy requires a rather large government and a significant commitment to social insurance…They certainty do not have to embrace all cultural change uncritically, but they will need to accept its inevitability if they wish to preserve what is most valuable in our natural tradition” (p. 35)..

Some might argue that conservatism is about finding non-governmental solutions or the belief that government is inefficient or gets in the way of better ways of solving problems. I would agree that the best solutions often do not come from government. However, when problems persist and expand or were even initially created by government policy, like inequality or racial tensions, government intervention is practically and morally appropriate and necessary. We can’t watch injustice and hope for a more efficient solution, but must seek to resolve that injustice by any means available. As a conservative, I need not rely on private charity and oppose government welfare spending, but rather should promote it in a way that encourages social mobility, personal responsibility, and creates opportunities and incentives for progress, knowing that it won’t always be successful but we can’t let inefficiency be an excuse for doing nothing. Though I don’t expect anyone to conform to my religious values, I hope many conservatives (and others) would share my conviction that I am my brother’s keeper, that I cannot live my values and ignore the suffering of others. I can and should simultaneously practice personal charity while also advocating for a society where we all care for our neighbor. If I can advocate for the government to respect the institution of family, surely I can advocate for it relieve the suffering of the poor. My values teach me that I am responsible for my own actions, but also that I should not refrain from helping others because of the judgmental belief that their misfortune is a result of their own poor choices. I believe in the potential of every individual for success, and thus when I see groups systematically achieving a lesser degree of that success I think it is my moral duty to advocate for any and all solutions to their misfortune. So you can be conservative and advocate for a greater role of the government, and I personally believe in a greater government role because of my conservative values.

Also published on Medium.