In the heart of Chicago, a radical and socialist plan is being pushed by Mayor Brandon Johnson. This plan seeks to establish government-controlled grocery stores in areas where inflation and rampant theft have crushed private businesses, leaving residents trapped in what are being described as “food deserts.” And shockingly, or perhaps not so shockingly, other cities across the nation are contemplating following suit at the urging of advocates for so-called State Owned Enterprises.
This government-run grocery store solution may sound enticing on the surface. They promise affordable and nutritious food, support for local producers, and economic growth. But that’s just empty rhetoric. In reality, we’ll see government bureaucracy stifle innovation, diminish choice, and impose rationing measures that infringe upon our freedom to make our own decisions. Wherever government inserts its heavy hand, inefficiency and scarcity follow.
This phenomenon reminds me of the municipal broadband debates that I was involved in a number of years ago. I was of course completely opposed to them. Back then, and even now, cities throughout the country try to compete with the private sector in delivering internet service to their residents. What could possibly go wrong?
But let’s not be deceived by this seemingly compassionate food-security initiative. This audacious scheme is not just about addressing food deserts; it’s about turning to big government as the ultimate savior. It’s about expanding the role of the state at the expense of private enterprise and individual freedom. It’s about social engineering with taxpayer dollars writ-large.
Yes, food deserts are a real and pressing problem. But is it truly the responsibility of the government to step in and seize control when private businesses struggle? Should we trust the same government that has consistently failed to efficiently run institutions, now tasked with managing our grocery stores? And can we stop and at least acknowledge that the underlying culprit of “food deserts” is government itself?
I’m referring to inflation, and crime. Inflation isn’t caused by private grocery stores; it is caused by the hapless academics at the Federal Reserve. And rampant crime also isn’t the fault of grocery stores; it is caused by the progressives who run local municipalities and their refusal to adequately fund law enforcement. If you want less crime, you need more police. If you want lower prices, you need more economic growth, which comes about through less government restrictions on commerce.
Chicago is not unique in its pursuit of government-controlled grocery stores. Other cities have adopted this socialist approach, including in Kansas, and even Florida. Make no mistake: this is a slippery slope towards a society where the power and control lie in the hands of the government, while individual initiative and entrepreneurship are stifled.
As conservatives, we must stand against this encroachment into the private sector, and we also must reject the notion that government knows best and can solve every problem that arises. Instead, we should encourage private businesses to flourish, and empower local communities to find private-sector solutions. Government has a role to play, but as I’ve already pointed out, that role should be primarily its traditional role of providing public safety and law enforcement, so these businesses can thrive in all areas of the city, not just in wealthy neighborhoods.
As we look to the future, it’s crucial that we remember the importance of limited government and the power of entrepreneurial capitalism. We must not allow the allure of government-controlled grocery stores to blind us to the potential consequences. Instead, we must strive for a society where private enterprise is encouraged and the government’s role is limited to protecting our God-given, inalienable rights and freedoms.
