Skip to main content



Politicians use class warfare to create emotional support for policy approaches people would automatically oppose if objectively evaluating a particular policy position. 

Class warfare is when politicians place the outcomes of one demographic subgroup on enacting their desired policy prescription on another subgroup, which might be mutually beneficial. 

The divisive political practice fosters resentment from the group in need against the group served as a scapegoat for policy inefficacy. Irrationality clouds the fact one group is not responsible for the other’s outcome. 

Consider the narratives used in efforts to increase the size of government coffers. Proponents of tax increases and government centric economics leverage class warfare to garner support. 

No one likes paying taxes. Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats and Independents all would rather keep more of their money in their pockets than hand it over to the government. 

Otherwise, we would see a plethora of people declining or returning their tax refund checks. Sending in additional money to the IRS. Or purposefully overstating their incomes on tax filing. No one does this. 

Many people want taxes kept equally low for all people throughout society. But, there are people that support increased taxes on other people. The “as long as it is not me” group. 

The fair share movement exploits the needs of one group to raise the tax rates on another, who have greater discretionary income. Which our progressive tax system already requires them to pay higher taxes. 

Will government confiscating what they deem excess income from people improve economic outcomes or fix social problems? Of course not. But, anger is a strong motivator to move support for unpopular ideals. 

While there are issues in how employers compensate workers, the overall fact is some professions pay more, based largely on the skill set needed and the availability of qualified workers. 

A person earning more does not automatically make them liable for the needs and wants of another who earns less. People do not split a dinner check based on income, but what each ordered. 

Do not take this as a defense of the rich, but a wakeup call for people exploiting class warfare to push false social panacea that will actually make our society worse for the wear. 

The question people need to ask these proponents is how the increase in the government pockets will actually fix the gaps in society, without killing the golden goose or making it worse for everyone else. 

Government is never the efficient provide of anything other than inefficiency. The government option typically is a watered down version of the good or service the person actually needs. 

A better approach would be for policymakers to roll up their sleeves and collaborate with all concerned parties to find ways to increase access and availability to all in need. 

Can policymakers bring people together to improve healthcare while protecting coverage quality, choice, and innovation? Can financial services or housing do the same without reducing quality?

The answer to these does not involve pitting one set of people against another. But, finding workable models that will expand the product pools to solve the problems for a wider population.