I read an article today that was profoundly stupid. Its thesis was that conservatives had nothing to offer the voters, so they would be unlikely to carry the day. I assume he is an American.
It misses the point of conservative approaches to government. Conservatives should offer less because that is what the people need. If people force their politicians to outspend each other, we will all end up broke.
Many think people need incentives, and the government should supply those. Any thought at all would reach the conclusion that external stimuli don’t work very well. Usually though, the government provides incentives and, at the same time, regulation and expense. Disincentives.
So the political trick is to provide incentives and disincentives that balance but look like incentives for most. That’s how you get votes.
A conservative politician would look for problems that are not presently self-solving. Many problems are invented by politicians so they will have something do. Thoughtful, well researched, and well-crafted programs would minimize the need for high taxes and remove many disincentives.
The disincentive thing is the problem – like higher taxes to pay for the incentives among them. When conservatives aren’t offering incentives, they are likely, at the same time are offering fewer disincentives.
Which should a voter want?
A) Fewer incentives and fewer disincentives, or
B) more disincentives and more incentives.
For business people, the best incentive is fewer disincentives.
Likely true for people, too.
I help people understand and manage risk and other financial issues. To help them achieve and exceed their goals, I use tax efficiencies and design advantages—the result: more security, more efficient income, larger and more liquid estates.
Please be in touch if I can help you. email@example.com 705-927-4770