If all we needed was common sense, why do conservatives keep telling me to use common sense? Isn’t it ironic that I need someone to remind me? If solutions were truly that simple, we’d already be thriving.
This isn’t to say that Liberals have been perfect, but reducing complex social and economic issues to “common sense” isn’t helpful.
What are some examples of “common sense” solutions that didn’t actually work?
Take prison food services. To cut costs, the government decided to privatize food services in prisons and “modernize” them. On the surface, it feels like common sense—who wouldn’t want modernization?
Even if you believe that inmates don’t deserve high-quality meals, providing subpar food leads to malnutrition. And let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that malnutrition somehow forces inmates to become better citizens—perhaps another common sense idea. Maybe bad food will make them appreciate good food, incentivizing better behavior. But when the food is served cold, when there are safety concerns, and when meals make people sick or cause vomiting, isn’t that just creating more problems? These issues can lead to increased medical costs, disruptions in prisons, and, ultimately, a greater burden on taxpayers.
What’s worse is that inmates were already cooking food under supervision, learning valuable life skills in the process. It was a system that was working fine. But instead of improving what was already effective, privatization disrupted a structure that not only provided meals but also helped with rehabilitation.
To be fair, food modernization isn’t always bad. Factory-style meal production can be efficient, ensuring balanced nutrition while maintaining cleanliness. But privatization is where the problem begins. In theory, competition should improve services, but when the government contracts the cheapest provider, cost-cutting measures become inevitable. And when it comes to basic necessities like food, cutting corners has real consequences.
Let’s move beyond food. What about the idea of being “tough on crime”? It feels like common sense—no one wants to be “soft” on crime.
But there’s little evidence that harsh sentencing reduces crime. And this isn’t just a Canadian issue; the U.S. has the highest incarceration rates in the world, yet studies consistently show that tougher sentencing does not lead to safer communities.
When a government prioritizes being “tough on crime,” it ends up incarcerating more people. In the short term, this may seem effective—criminals are off the streets. But when another common sense idea is to cut government spending (because why spend on criminals?), prisons become overcrowded, unsafe, and poorly managed. This creates dangerous conditions not just for inmates but also for correctional officers. Instead of rehabilitation, we end up with hardened criminals who are eventually released back into society, leading to more crime. Then, in response, we become even tougher on crime, perpetuating a cycle that never actually solves the problem.
Stephen Harper’s tough-on-crime policies seemed like common sense—but did they actually make your community safer?
I’ll keep this short, since attention spans are limited. Next time, we’ll dive into more common sense conservative talking points. And let’s be clear: criticizing conservatives doesn’t mean automatically supporting liberals. The Liberals had nearly a decade to fix these issues, yet they continued pushing neoliberal policies that haven’t helped any of us.