Conservatives have long grounded their politics, and vision for society in the pursuit of truth, virtue, and moral responsibility. That's why the ever degrading morality of our society has increasingly become a chief concern.
For decades, the right has warned that America’s moral fabric is fraying, a decline often tied to secularization, the collapse of church attendance, and the weakening of family life. While these concerns are very real, there is another source of the problem, one that begins where many of society’s most persistent failures begin: government policy, particularly its effects on the economy.
Consider marriage as an example. Many young Americans now point to the rising cost of housing as a reason to postpone marriage or avoid it altogether. Some conservatives argue that young couples in the 1960s often rented modest homes, saved money, and purchased property together rather than waiting to buy a house before marrying. But that comparison overlooks how dramatically the economic terrain has changed, how consistently the perception of affordability affects virtuous choices, and how public policy has helped make family formation more financially daunting.
A growing part of the right says young people are delaying marriage because they can’t afford to buy a house and establish financial security first.
— Will Ricciardella (@WillRicci) August 16, 2026
Yes, housing really is too expensive. But history tells a different story.
Most young Boomer newlyweds were renters. Today's… pic.twitter.com/lYvLiM8BHr
Rent control, for example, can give individuals a powerful incentive to remain in an apartment that no longer fits their lives, rather than move in with a future spouse, relocate for better work, or make room for children. In high-cost cities, young adults may delay marriage, postpone a first child, remain with parents or roommates longer than they otherwise would, and treat financial stability as a prerequisite for family formation. Research has even linked expensive housing markets to delayed first births, while broader literature has found evidence that high rents and housing costs can discourage fertility.
The effects do not end with the family. When households feel financially cornered, generosity becomes harder to sustain. People have less money, time, and emotional margin to give to churches, charities, neighbors, schools and other local institutions. Economic distress and inequality are associated with lower volunteering, while charitable behavior is positively associated with factors such as trust, marriage, religiosity, and happiness. A society that feels constantly squeezed becomes more susceptible to zero-sum thinking, resentment toward the wealthy, suspicion that success is evidence of corruption, and growing support for the use of government power to redistribute what others have earned. In other words, it has lead directly to the rise of organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America.
That same mindset increasingly shapes fights over development, technology, and the future of our country as well. The data center debate, for instance, is often portrayed as corporations imposing unwanted burdens on local communities, inclduing higher electricity demand, heavy water use, noise, land consumption, tax incentives, and uncertainty over who pays for expanded infrastructure. Those concerns may deserve scrutiny, but they have also become a reflexive hostility toward investment itself, especially when people already believe that growth benefits everyone except them.
None of this is to argue that young couples should wait until they can afford a house before getting married. It is, however, an explanation for why many increasingly feel unable to take that step. Whether we like it or not, economic policy does not exist apart from culture. It shapes the conditions in which people form families, build communities, practice generosity, and make the choices that ultimately define a society’s moral fabric.
This is among the strongest reasons conservatives must continue defending free-market economics and resisting the heavy hand of the state.
Free markets are often dismissed as amoral, concerned only with prices, profit, and self-interest. But properly understood, they are critical in cultivating moral citizens. They reward responsibility and accountability, they create a drive for generosity, innovation, creativity, and prudent risk-taking, and they give ordinary people the freedom to build, provide, create, and achieve more than they once thought possible.
That is why conservatism must defend free markets not only against the economic failures of state control, but against the cultural failures it so regularly produces and exacerbates. A society that rewards work, ownership, voluntary exchange, and personal initiative is more likely to produce self-reliant, virtuous citizens, durable families, and strong communities than one that teaches people to look first to government to solve their problems.
