By Dina Farooq Kalim | Spring 2026 – Volume 16

In politics, you might hear the phrase “socially liberal but
fiscally conservative,” but this is actually an oxymoron.
Although many people believe that economic policy and
social policy are two separate entities, the two are in fact
inextricably linked.

As of recently, many Gen Z’s, particularly men, have
begun to lean overwhelmingly conservative. This
phenomenon can be chalked up to many aspects of
modern society; social media echo chambers, increasing
isolation of the sexes, and lack of community. But the
surmounting reason may actually be the economic
decline of our country.

As of 2026, PEW Research Center has reported that
America’s middle class has fallen by over 10%,
unemployment has increased, and within our middle
class the option of buying a home has become an
unrealistic goal for the 60%+ of Americans that are
currently existing paycheck to paycheck (Kochhar).

Given that the wealth distribution in America has
become concerningly concentrated at the top, many
Americans have turned to the right to alleviate their
issues and discover relief in a common enemy. “Aggregate
Shocks and the Formation of Preferences and Beliefs” by
Paola Giuliano and Antonio Spilimbergo is a review
paper that synthesizes research from economics,
sociology, and psychology on how major events like
recessions, wars, pandemics, and migrations shape
individual and societal values, political views, and risk
attitudes. Key findings show that shocks experienced
during young adulthood have the most significant and
lasting impact, often shifting preferences toward the
political right (Giuliano and Spilimbergo).

The study implies that in times of negative economic
shocks, people tend to divide, and find a group to blame.
Sound familiar? The increasing rage towards
marginalized groups such as immigrants and women,
which have become exponentially more prominent due to
our current administration.

Wealth inequality creates a breeding ground for societal
self-destruction. Instead of looking from a top-down
perspective, we incite violence against each other at the
bottom. The prominence of the gender war discourse
online, the abhorrent removal of women’s reproductive
rights, and the unconstitutional institution of ICE, all
stem from the same central issue: class. No where does
this correlation best fit than in the realm of feminism.

One of the staples of modern conservatism is the
resurgence of gender roles within the household; women
should be at home and raising a family rather than
participating in the workforce. Yet this kind of rhetoric is
paradoxical, as it is a consistent fact that nations that
promote equality among the sexes are almost always
more economically stable.

The World Economic Forum points out a direct
correlation between nations that rank in the top 10 for
gender equality, and their respective economic prosperity.
Primary examples include Iceland, Finland and Norway,
where the sustained participation of women in the
workforce has been proved to increase their GDP, and in
turn their social programs. Women earning a substantial
income leads to a larger tax pool, higher consumption,
and a productive labor force; all essential attributes for a
successful economy. However, this directly contradicts
the current right wing view that a nuclear family is more
suitable for families to function.

Research from the International Monetary Fund further
reinforces this point. Closing gender gaps in labor force
participation could raise GDP in emerging and
developing economies by roughly eight percent, while full
parity could increase GDP by as much as twenty three
percent on average (Calviño, Georgieva, and Renaud-
Basso). UN Women similarly documents that women’s
economic empowerment strengthens household income
stability, reduces poverty rates, and increases long term
national growth (UN Women). The economic case for
gender equality is not ideological.

It is structural.

Now that we have established the link between economic
decline and socially conservative beliefs, let’s switch our
focus to fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism,
according to the Pelican Institute, is defined as an
economic philosophy advocating for limited government
spending, lower taxes, reduced national debt, and minimal
government intervention in the free market. Although this
system of beliefs comes across as purely sequestered from
issues such as feminism, systemic racism, and
immigration, they lay the groundwork for the abuse of
these marginalized groups on a mass scale. Additionally, as
of 2020, 39% of Americans identify as fiscally
conservative, rendering this school of thought quite
abundant.

From a fiscally conservative perspective, programs like
SNAP benefits, Medicaid, childcare, planned parenthood,
and other institutions that aid in uplifting communities
are considered an overreach
of government control.
But arguably the most detrimental
ramification of fiscal
conservatism is the damage
it inflicts on the environment.

Markets do not automatically account for environmental
damage. Economists describe this as a negative
externality, meaning a cost imposed on society that is
not reflected in the price of a good. When corporations
emit carbon or discharge waste into water systems, the
financial burden of climate change, extreme weather,
and public health deterioration is absorbed by
communities rather than the polluters themselves.

The history of American environmental regulation
illustrates why intervention matters. Prior to the
establishment of the Environmental Protection
Agency in 1970, industrial pollution severely
contaminated rivers and urban air. Federal legislation
such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act
significantly reduced pollution while economic growth
continued. Economic analysis has shown that the
public health benefits of these regulations have
exceeded their compliance costs (Greenstone and
Jack). Without regulation, environmental protection
becomes economically irrational from the perspective
of profit-maximizing firms.

Anti-monopoly law presents a parallel concern. Many
fiscal conservatives don’t have any intention of
regulating monopolies and trusts like Amazon. When
corporations consolidate markets, they can suppress
wages, eliminate competitors, and dictate prices.

The dangers of unregulated profit incentives extend even
further. The private prison industry provides a stark
example. Private prisons operate on a model in which
revenue depends on incarceration rates. When
imprisonment becomes a business model, the incentive is
not rehabilitation or justice, but occupancy. Research has
shown that private prison corporations have invested
heavily in lobbying efforts supporting stricter sentencing
and immigration detention policies (Selman and
Leighton). The profit motive in this context transforms
human confinement into a financial asset.

Across environmental deregulation, monopoly power,
and privatized incarceration, the pattern remains
consistent. When government intervention is minimized
in the name of fiscal restraint, the only remaining
guiding force is profit. Profit alone does not internalize
environmental costs, protect labor markets, or safeguard
civil rights.

The phrase “socially liberal but fiscally conservative”
implies that one can separate a commitment to human
dignity from a commitment to the economic conditions
that make dignity possible. The data suggests otherwise.
You cannot claim to support women’s rights while
dismantling the economic systems that enable women to
achieve financial independence. You cannot claim to
oppose injustice while defending policies that
concentrate wealth and power at the top.

Economic systems shape social realities. When inequality
widens and regulation erodes, division intensifies. The
economics of conservatism are not, in the end, very
conservative at all. They are a gamble on instability, paid
for by the people who can least afford to lose.

---

Calviño, Nadia, Kristalina Georgieva, and Odile Renaud-
Basso. “The Economic Power of Gender Equality.”
European Investment Bank / Project Syndicate, 8 Mar.
2024.
Giuliano, Paola, and Antonio Spilimbergo. “Growing Up
in a Recession.” The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 81,
no. 2, 2014, pp. 787–817.

Greenstone, Michael, and B. Kelsey Jack.
“Envirodevonomics: A Research Agenda for an Emerging
Field.” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 53, no. 1,
2015, pp. 5–42.
Khan, Lina. “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.” Yale Law
Journal, vol. 126, no. 3, 2017, pp. 710–805.
Kochhar, Rakesh. “The State of the American Middle
Class.” Pew Research Center, 31 May 2024.
Selman, Donna, and Paul Leighton. Punishment for Sale:
Private Prisons, Big Business, and the Incarceration Binge.
Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
UN Women. “Facts and Figures: Economic
Empowerment.” United Nations Women.