This is less of a policy thing and more of a fundamental reaction thing: Generally, conservatives have a reflexive response to issues of fairness, free-ridery, etc. The idea that somewhere, someone might game public benefits or services or money, or whatever, is unbearable (I also think their targets for this ire are usually wrong, too, but that’s for another thread). This is primary. It’s often presented in anecdotes (e.g., the power and persistence of the Welfare Queen). On the surface at least, it makes sense.
I get it. It’s an understandable response. (I even hated group projects in school because of this: there’d always be some deadbeat.)
But how we contextualize it, understand it in the aggregate, and try to view it dispassionately as a matter of rational, efficient public policy—that’s where the difference is.
It reminds me of that “Dukakis” moment in the '88 debates: the old chestnut where you ask an anti-death penalty person how they would feel if their (insert sympathetic female family member) were raped and murdered. Well, duh. It would be horrific and devastating. We’d probably be inconsolable and furious with grief and anger and a desire for vengeance.
But getting from those understandable feelings to general support for the death penalty is problematic. First and foremost, I don’t think our laws and justice system should be grounded in amygdalas flooded with neurochemicals and incapable of judgement and discernment. In fact, it’s because of that response that I am against the death penalty (not the only reason).
