A Suggestion for Compromise

Why cost-efficiency and compassion are not mutually exclusive

On my mission for political compromise, I’ve previously suggested that we have many misconceptions, made worse by media bias to the point where we can’t even agree on basic facts. My ultimate goal is to encourage more productive conversations. In my mostly liberal circles, in times where even a moderate stance can be the dissenting opinion, I believe conservative viewpoints are the ones that need exploring. But I’m not just playing devil’s advocate — I genuinely do not believe, for example, that conservative economics is fundamentally selfish. I think it’s seriously misunderstood and a better understanding would make us realize how much we have in common.

Conservatives want financial agency for individuals and ensuring we use our resources to address a wide range of issues. The final point especially tends to get lost. On the surface, questioning the effectiveness of social policies appears pretty antisocial, but here’s why I disagree:

Imagine what other vital programs for health, mental health, pandemics, or climate change could be funded with cost-effective policies. I can see where liberals are coming from — conservatives often do come across as unlikeable. Perhaps calls for cost-efficiency coming from wealthy politicians appear tone-deaf — but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. We should explain why it matters if an ineffective solution is 20 dollars when there’s an effective 60 cent solution. I believe that for the sake of compromise, the burden here rests on conservatives to articulate their arguments better so that there’s no room for misunderstanding.

We all know the teach-a-man-to-fish proverb. For some, freedom means empowering people to choose from various options and make decisions for themselves. For others, it means having safety nets in place, allowing for occasional mistakes while also giving children a fair chance to succeed in life. I’d wager that most people want a healthy combination of these ideals.

Contrary to commonly expressed sentiments, government-provided services are not free. We pay for them through income taxes and various other contributions. Certain programs get funded at the cost of other programs not being funded. COVID-19 stimulus packages, for example, will need to be repaid with a combination of future taxes and austerity measures affecting future generations’ health, education, and social programs.

Pandemic aside, because safety nets cost money, there is a trade-off between government-provided services and individual choices. Your preference for the trade-off is directly influenced by how you define freedom and I believe we can agree that neither definition is fundamentally evil.

Eradicating all government programs and asking whether existing policies effectively resolve problems are two very different conversations.

The point is, we need randomized controlled trials to figure out what is effective and not base decisions only on what sounds good. We have to discuss welfare reform, affordable housing and family dynamics without questioning each other’s character.

We should remember that by nature, there will always be a top 1% and bottom 20% unless you artificially equalize outcomes. We should remember that even if we equalize outcomes, inequality would eventually reappear because people are not the same. We should remember that many inequality statistics don’t represent social mobility within a person’s lifetime. With that said, a lack of socioeconomic mobility is a problem — it destabilizes trust in each other and democracy. That’s precisely why people care so much about whether proposed solutions create more opportunities or more unemployment.

We’re primed to dislike policies benefitting the rich. We cringe at trickle-down economics and it’s understandable why. Apart from a few superhero movies, the rich guy as the power-hungry antagonist is a deeply ingrained archetype and entitled rich people can be very irritating. But there’s something we forget. The fact is, wealthy people and corporations invest. And when they invest in certain neighborhoods, it creates opportunities for people, not just for potential employees, but for nearby restaurants, shops and services. When people earn more, the federal government organically collects more money from income tax , which can then fund important social safety nets. When investors leave neighborhoods, opportunities dry up very quickly.

If COVID-19 lockdowns have taught us anything, I hope it’s at least that the economy is incredibly interconnected and does trickle — whether up, down, sideways or across.

Sometimes well-intentioned policies worsen the problem they set out to solve. If someone opposes a policy, it doesn’t by default mean they’re not deeply concerned with inequality. I vehemently caution against career politicians, authoritarianism, social engineering, utopias and conformist attitudes regardless of left or right leanings. However, I also openly admit that I do not wish to live in anarchy and believe that we willingly exchange individual freedoms to support each other. To find our equilibrium, we have to be able to compete and collaborate. To have balance, we have to walk the fine line between rules ensuring fairness, systems offering safety nets, and flexibility allowing for choice.

There was a time when thinking outside the box was welcomed for problem-solving. I’m thinking of the Freakonomics series, authors like Chuck Klosterman, or William MacAskill — writers who offer great insights, data, and information on these issues without being based on identity politics. To think outside the box, we have to allow the questioning of policies without questioning each other’s fundamental goodness.

Related posts:

Please note that the integrity criterion is different for WhatsApp compared to Email! This shows that the meaning of the criterion depends on the context. Similarly, availability in many business…

Working with a client today is not the same as it was last year. The current housing market is historic — and piping hot! The chief economist for the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), Lawrence…

We all have habits that we know are bad for us — from biting our nails to staying up too late. But some habits can have a more significant impact on our lives than others. In this blog, we’ll explore…