Why “Systems Change” Doesn’t Sell in Conservative Circles

From the Other Side of the Table Series • Part 3

By Shannon Jones

I’ve been in politics long enough to know that most people—especially policymakers—want to solve real problems. But they don’t always agree on how. And if you’ve ever pitched a big idea to a conservative legislature, you’ve probably felt that tension firsthand.

I see it all the time in my consulting work. Advocates come in with bold, ambitious visions. They talk about “systems change,” “transforming institutions,” “restructuring broken frameworks.” Their intentions are good—but they often lose the room. Not because the lawmakers don’t care about the issue, but because the solution feels like exactly what they’ve been elected to resist: a big, expensive, centralized government fix.

That’s the real disconnect. It’s not the goal—it’s the framing. When you start with “institutional failure” or “comprehensive systems reform,” many conservative policymakers hear: “government is the solution, and we need a lot more of it.” In red states, that message runs straight into deeply held beliefs about limited government, fiscal restraint, and the importance of personal and local responsibility.

These lawmakers aren’t blind to structural problems. They just don’t trust that another layer of bureaucracy will fix them. In their experience, “systems” often create waste, inefficiency, and a loss of accountability.

So when an advocate leads with sweeping reform, it can sound more like ideology than practicality—and more like an attack than an invitation.

That doesn’t mean conservative leaders don’t want progress. Many do. But they respond better when solutions are framed in familiar terms—local control, family stability, smart stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

The most successful advocacy efforts I’ve seen with conservative policymakers—whether in state legislatures or on Capitol Hill—are the ones that make their case without sounding like a call for government expansion.

Take the recent debate over the federal refundable child tax credit. While many advocacy groups framed it as an anti-poverty tool or a tool to reduce disparities, what resonated most with conservative champions was something much simpler:

• It’s a tax cut for working families.

• It's a policy that supports parents who are doing everything right and still struggling to keep up.

• It's a policy that rewards work, reinforces personal responsibility, and trusts families—not government—to decide what their children need.

That’s not “systems change.” That’s conservative tax policy in service of pro-family values.

Examples like this underscore a bigger point: you don’t have to abandon bold ideas—you just have to package them in a way that works in the current landscape. Some advocates will always believe big government is the right answer—and in a different political moment, they may be able to make that case more directly. But this is where we are now. If you want to make progress with conservative policymakers, you have to meet the moment strategically. That’s what real advocacy requires. You don’t need to water down your mission—but you do need to adjust your approach. Because no matter how urgent the issue, if the solution feels like ideology wrapped in bureaucracy, it’s going nowhere.