There is an odd misconception that always finds its way resurfacing in public debate, and it’s that Republican candidates are better for the economy overall. The idea that Republican candidates are good for the economy has been a longstanding, widely unverifiable take that — at least from a historical standpoint — is incorrect.

Even though this is unverifiable, fiscally conservative candidates continue to win the title of “better for the economy” solely based on their vibes, for lack of a better term. A daunting reality that I dare to point out is how much the public can flat out ignore the current state of the economy, just as they do during the Iranian conflict. The price of gas in the United States is quickly burning through the pockets of Americans.

In March, Americans saw the largest monthly jump in gas prices in 60 years, a spike so high that it managed to increase inflation. Consumer prices rose by 3.3%, which is distinctly higher from just 2.4% in February. The monthly rate increase has changed by 0.9% from February to March, which is the largest increase in nearly four years. 

It’s important to note that while gas prices were higher under the previous administration, this spike in prices is the highest we have seen between the two. This results in less financial wiggle room for immediate necessities for the average consumer within the month the conflict started, like rent costs, food, childcare, etc. This literally forces the consumer to rebudget their finances in the middle of the month to adjust for the price increase due to the conflict and the tension it has taken on the global economy.

The question for the future is as follows — will this nightmare end? 

The economic distress caused by political tension is essentially a burden on the consumer. This burden, in turn, causes the need for structural change to our welfare systems as a means to aid in the after effects of inflation and other price hikes. Historically, democratic candidates have done a much better job at counteracting economic hardships with job growth and small business creation. 

Historically, policies by Democratic candidates like Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1930s New Deal created Social Security and unemployment insurance — two legacy programs that are still in use to this day because of how well they work for the average consumer. Most Democrats understand the need to provide more assistance to people in need, which is especially important in times of significant conflict, as the New Deal was created to counteract the effects of the Great Depression following World War I. No significant change in our welfare structure has happened to the likes of this in the past century, but it is notable that blue states, in comparison to red states, have tended to expand welfare programs like Medicaid to a greater extent — something that research shows is beneficial in the long-term to the consumer. 

It is not likely that the recovery process for the financial hardships from the current state of conflict will include a beneficial change to our welfare, as it could under the leadership of a different administration.

It also does not necessarily mean that the recovery process would be better under a Democratic Administration. However, it is more realistic that a long-term positive impact on the economy is probable with a greater expansion of welfare programs when faced with international conflict — a solution that doesn’t seem likely with the current administration.  

The recovery process from this conflict could make or break the bank of the consumer, and we will surely be the ones paying for the burden it has caused.

Mariam T Bangurah writes primarily about national, social and pop culture news. Reach out to her at [email protected]