Margaret Thatcher once said, “I don’t expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me — that’s not their job.”
As one of the only conservatives at a small liberal arts school, Thatcher’s words precisely mirror how I feel. It is quite normal for me to be the only student rebutting a liberal argument. My world history class could only spend a limited amount of time on her, but we were able to watch her 1980 address at the Conservative Party Conference, more commonly known as the speech where she powerfully said, “The lady’s not for turning.”
Her poise and wit, even with hecklers, deeply interested me, but the content of her speech was what truly captivated me. Thatcher encompassed the core values of conservatism very eloquently into one speech: merit, freedom, and lower taxes.
There is nothing inherently offensive about merit, freedom, or lower taxes. They are all American ideals, but many disregard these ideals when discussed in the context of conservatism. For believing in them, people often assume I’m anti-feminist; however, the opposite is true.
I want to be judged and paid fairly, not because I’m female, but on account of my merit. I want only my work considered, as it is the most accurate measure of who I am and what values I hold, not my gender. Conservatism does not mean anti-feminism, just that the people within the movement wish to be known for their merit above all else.
When I mention freedom, it is often misconstrued by my peers to mean that I disagree with every federal regulatory law, even those concerning safety. This is not the case. I’m thankful for the laws protecting my safety and those around me.
Nevertheless, I believe that our country is far too vast and different for the federal government to always make laws that are in the best interests of everyone. The individual states exist for that very reason. While agriculture in California may require strict legal restrictions on water usage, Florida may be a different story. Different states will require different taxes at different rates. The federal government simply cannot make large, all-encompassing laws that help everyone. Conservatism aims to give local government officials who are most connected with their constituents more control. A smaller federal government does not mean no laws, just that people have a greater impact on their own lives.
As well as smaller federal government influence, conservatism aims to ease the tax burden. To my peers, I commit blasphemy every time I mention lowering taxes. It immediately conjures images of a post-apocalyptic world full of hungry people and potholes on every corner.
But lower taxes are important so that people who have worked for their money get to spend it how they feel best. A large government is ineffective in distributing wealth fairly — the larger taxes rise, the more dependence on the government grows. Eventually, if so much money comes out of people’s paychecks, they have to rely on the government to give it back to them, usually in the form of well-intentioned but poorly executed welfare programs.
When governments begin to choose which people and businesses are given advantages, inefficiency and corruption begin to breed.
Conservatism’s focus on merit and independence from government enables people to own their lives. Sometimes people will make bad decisions, but at least it is their decision, not one made for them by a government.
I’m proud to be conservative because it means we can choose to be liberal, conservative, or anything in between, and because my merit is more important than my gender.
Kelsie Scarim is a student at Community High School of Arts and Academics. She was the winner of the #ShesConservative 2018 Network of Enlightened Women Essay Contest, high school category.
