What happens when the foundations of political ideologies are built on contradiction? Most people are accustomed to the double standards held by political parties. After all, if the sole goal of a party is to advance its political agenda, then it makes sense they would advance that agenda through any means necessary—including sacrificing total consistency. But what if the very agendas these parties claim to promote are themselves built on contradiction? A thorough examination of each political party’s views on a variety of issues will prove this to be true.
Two fundamental principles that are central to each political party are their self-proclaimed reverence for liberty and their commitment to freedom. Yet, time and time again, these principles are applied inconsistently, revealing ideological fault lines that undermine their legitimacy.
Both parties claim to fight for liberty—until it gets in their way. Republicans advocate for “small government” and “individual liberty” while simultaneously claiming that the government should regulate abortion and drug use. When asked about this contradiction, they then claim that the government has a vested interest in regulating morality to ensure a better society for everyone. If the government has this interest, then why shouldn’t the government fund SNAP programs to provide food to children facing food insecurity or increase funding of Section 8 Housing to give much-needed rental assistance to vulnerable families? After all, most individuals can agree that it is immoral for a child to be at risk of starvation or homelessness. If the government should regulate social issues because they have a responsibility to uphold some kind of basic moral code and ensure a better life for all individuals in the United States, then why should the government allow for severe poverty because it’s “not the government’s role?”
The same logic can be used for liberal policies. Many Democrats claim that the government has no role in regulating abortion because it’s a “personal healthcare decision.” If the government shouldn’t intervene in the healthcare of individuals because these are personal decisions, then why should they also heavily regulate and subsidize healthcare? By dictating the parameters of coverage, which treatments are eligible for subsidies, and prices of various drugs or procedures, the government inevitably shapes the healthcare options available to individuals. For example, programs like Medicare and Medicaid come with rules about which procedures are covered and under what circumstances, often limiting the freedom of doctors and patients to make decisions independent of bureaucratic oversight. Through regulation and subsidization, the government is heavily impacting personal decisions. However, the same party that supports this government intervention also claims that the government should not play any role in regulating the procedure of abortion since it is a “personal decision.”
Democrats and Republicans both claim to be the party of liberty. Democrats prioritize liberty in social issues, and Republicans support less government involvement in economic issues. The respective motivations of each party’s support for government intervention in different domains are similar: the government has a vested interest in creating a better society for all Americans. If this is true, then why do Democrats support individuals’ rights to medical freedom while also believing that religious insurance providers should be forced to provide contraception? For Republicans—why is it acceptable for the government to ban gender-affirming care for minors but not increase firearm regulation to limit school shootings? Both of these policies are aimed at the same supposed goal—protecting children.
It is ideologically incoherent to say that the government has a responsibility to ensure a better life for its citizens by regulating their social life but avoiding economic intervention. Likewise, it is contradictory to support government intervention in the economy to create a more “moral” society (directly quoted from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s X bio) while also opposing the regulation of personal choices that have an impact on others, like drug consumption.
The only way that we can bridge this gap is by accepting that morality—whether biblical, philosophical, or otherwise—does play a significant role in dictating public policy. Otherwise, why should the government do anything at all? Why shouldn’t there be total anarchy if morality doesn’t matter? Whatever logical arguments are used in favor of certain policies or principles are ultimately based in morality. All policy decisions—both social and economic—rest on moral considerations, so acknowledging this truth is essential to crafting coherent and just governance.
