When we were in high school, some of us at 1787 who were born into conservative households regarded the conservative trinity of small government, low taxes and less regulation as the answer to everything. Now, if you had asked us why we believed these things, we would not have had the first clue – mainly since we had engaged in zero research of our own.

 

Over time, common sense waged war with some of these beliefs – if not always with the belief itself, then certainly with the inflexibility. How, we began to wonder, can low taxes always be the right thing in a dynamic economy? After all, if we cut government spending at the expense of investing in our future, won’t our national growth slow and our infrastructure eventually fall apart? If we slash social safety nets, won’t income inequality just get worse? If we always put the needs of the individual over the needs of the collective, won’t we enable a severely divided society that will ultimately sabotage civil civilization?

​

Our questions were bipartisan. But if we don’t curb spending, won’t we soon face massive debt and a monumental deficit? If we implement too many financial regulations, won’t we potentially choke the free market and stifle economic growth? If we expand the federal government too much, won’t we end up with a runaway budget and paralyzed bureaucracy?

 

And then it finally hit us: The only way to operate at the most optimal level is to reject the liberal’s fallacy that the government is always our savior and Wall Street is always the enemy and the conservative’s fallacy that individualism, tax cuts and smaller government are always the miraculous solutions to everything. 

 

A mature democracy requires a robust and thriving private sector AND a strong and stable government, working together to stimulate the economy, promote innovative development, and enrich the public interest.

 

In other words, it’s all about balance.