The Scene staff
I used to think I was a liberal on most issues, staking out positions before even hearing both sides. After all, conservatives are the guys who don’t want gay people to get married, right?
But recently, I’ve changed my mind on a few things.
I’ve learned that social ideologies are very different from fiscal ideologies. Being a conservative fiscally doesn’t mean you are a bigot.
I’m also starting to see that leaving some decisions up to the free market is a good thing.
This epiphany occurred during conversations with my boss.
I work at a gas station, which is far from the most intellectually stimulating environment. But I began talking with John, my manager, about the size of government.
John believes government should be as small as possible. He insists he isn’t a Libertarian, but that’s what I call him.
I thought I was a die-hard liberal and, in most regards, I still am. Liberals tend to believe that government should be on the larger side, that it should provide citizens with a social safety net, among other services.
I always have been reluctant to listen to conservatives on fiscal issues, but I had reasons to hear John out.
First, he doesn’t believe in any of the prejudiced positions generally associated with conservative ideology. Second, he’s a nice and interesting person. I couldn’t write him off as “dumb” for not reinforcing my world views.
After a few conversations, my view on government had been challenged, and I couldn’t help but question the political philosophy behind it.
I began to realize that Social Security has big problems in its current structure.
I’m not saying it should be done away with and the people who depend on it should starve. But considering its poor condition, I’m thinking it would be best for people to take responsibility for their own retirement income.
I’m also now opposed to government interference with the economy. A hand’s-off approach ensures that only the best businesses survive and, in turn, the consumer gets better products and services.
That being said, some of my conversations with John have strengthened my long-held views.
The conservative take on public aid is that it dissuades people from achieving. In other words, why would someone work hard for money or food when welfare and food stamps exist?
The main problem with this thought process is that 83 percent of households that received food stamps in 2012 contained elderly or disabled people.
These people obviously can’t contribute to the workforce, and I can’t imagine a solution that involves letting them die.
Also consider this: In 2010, 41 percent of food-stamp recipients were part of the working poor. Their annual incomes fell below the poverty line, which varies based on household size.
To me, this seems like a failure of the free market. Why should taxpayers have to pick up the private sector’s slack? If all employees were paid a reasonable wage, far fewer people would have to rely on government assistance.
There are some compelling arguments about how a higher minimum wage would keep small businesses from opening and thriving, and how it would cause inflation.
But I find myself going back to a fact I learned from The Economic Policy Institute: If Walmart were to start paying its employees $12 an hour and passed all of the cost on to consumers, the average Walmart shopping trip would cost 1.1 percent more. That’s it!
In an ideal world, everyone would be self-sufficient. But the reality is, people need opportunities to work and achieve independence.
I’m far from the point of understanding everything about the economy, government or the seemingly infinite variables that affect them. But I am beginning to see that solutions aren’t exclusive to any one ideology.
Perhaps we should be less worried about whether a policy is congruent with our political parties and more concerned if it is right.