A strictly financial argument for conservatism never makes much progress with the electorate, because liberalism is presented as an explicitly moral enterprise. This is one of the big reasons it is never held to account for its practical failures. Every liberal talks up the latest huge expansion of the government as if the year is 1909, rather than 2009, and the ideas he advocates haven’t been proven disasters around the globe. Collectivist agriculture yields starvation, the trillion-dollar War on Poverty produces more poverty, political control of industries crashes those industries… and yet, it’s always Day One of the great socialist experiment, and no one has every hit on the brilliant idea of making the “rich” pay their “fair share” to fund a government crusade against want…

The ideas of the Left are both ineffective and immoral. They are not strictly economic proposals. Economics affect society, an idea the Left currently understands much better than the Right. When the State achieves the massive size of our federal government – and has cocooned itself in preparation for the metamorphosis into something incalculably larger – the difference between fiscal and social policy evaporates. What is the point of claiming to be “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” when the State controls so much of your life, and asserts first claim on so much of your income… which is another way of saying it has first claim on the majority of your time?