Summary: Politicians from across the political spectrum are campaigning on affordability, but many proposed fixes—price controls, eviction protections that raise landlord risk, and tariffs—can actually increase costs. That contrast gives free‑market advocates an opening: market‑oriented solutions like deregulation, increased supply, and open trade often reduce prices and improve living standards. By arguing patiently with evidence, free‑market voices can reclaim influence on the affordability debate in 2026.
‘Affordability’ Politics Creates a Big Opening For Free‑Market Messaging in 2026
'Affordability' Politics Is a Major Opening for the Free Market Message in the New Year
Politicians across the spectrum are campaigning on “affordability,” promising to make everyday life cheaper for working families. But many of the proposals touted as solutions—price controls, eviction protections that raise landlord risk, and higher tariffs—are likely to increase costs or mask true prices rather than reduce them. That mismatch creates an opening for free‑market advocates to refocus the debate on policies that actually lower consumer prices.
Virginia’s Example: Governor‑elect Abigail Spanberger’s early agenda—requiring utilities to add more energy storage, extending eviction timelines for tenants behind on rent, and banning insurers from charging higher premiums to tobacco users—was presented as an affordability plan. Critics, including a Manhattan Institute scholar posting as Judge Glock on X, argue many of those measures are more likely to raise costs than cut them.
Why “Affordability” Resonates
Affordability hits a universal nerve: voters care deeply about grocery bills, housing rents, healthcare premiums, and utility costs. Candidates from Zohran Mamdani in New York City to former President Donald Trump have used that frame to win voters, even when their policy prescriptions diverge sharply.
Where Politicians Miss The Mark
Many affordability platforms rely on interventions—price controls, restrictions on landlord remedies, or protectionist trade measures—that have predictable economic side effects. These policies can reduce supply, raise risk premiums, and push costs onto consumers in indirect ways. For example, stronger eviction protections without offsetting supply increases can reduce rental supply or raise rents as landlords price in higher risks.
"Capitalism's defining accomplishment is enabling ordinary people to obtain more with less effort," paraphrasing Joseph Schumpeter—an argument for letting markets address many affordability problems.
Where Free Markets Offer Answers
Free‑market approaches—deregulation that lowers barriers to entry, reforms that increase housing supply, and open trade—have clear mechanisms for lowering consumer prices. Tariffs, by contrast, act like a tax on imports and tend to raise consumer prices and reduce economic welfare. When the policy debate centers on affordability, free‑market arguments gain traction because they speak directly to everyday economic concerns.
How Free‑Market Advocates Can Win The Argument
1) Meet the affordability framing head‑on. Explain simply why interventions often backfire and provide concrete market alternatives. 2) Use empirical evidence and clear theory—show how tariffs raise prices, or how supply constraints push up housing costs. 3) Be patient and localize the argument: demonstrations of market successes in technology, telecom, or housing reform make abstract principles tangible.
Conclusion
Politics will still be noisy and culture‑driven in 2026, but the prominence of affordability as a political theme offers repeated opportunities for market advocates. Explaining why policies that raise costs won’t make things cheaper is straightforward and persuasive. If free‑market voices supply clearer, evidence‑based alternatives, they can make significant gains in both influence and public trust.
Originally published on Reason.com.
Help us improve.
