Cheering up, a little, with Bill McGurn: “How Obama’s ‘Life of Julia’ Prevailed; Conservatives don’t need to compromise their values. They need to do a better job of selling.” Many of my friends truly seem to believe that 47% of the US population wants to be in some kind of public assistance. The only argument I hear against the idea is that we should not say that because it is not a viable political message. If it is true, why would we not discuss it? Numbers are an inadequate reflection of reality, that’s why.
I want to begin collecting reasons why “the people” embrace entitlement programs. I think I am going to put the post out incomplete and work on it for a few days, asking why “The Life of Julia” would appeal to anyone? Please forbear with me as I muddle through, revise and add to the list with your assistance.
1. Fear: “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” always rang false and silly to me. However, I do think fear of the world as it is can be a problem. Modern expectations are so high, so complex, that people are reluctant to engage with life. Hence, basement boys, but also people who are afraid to attempt life out of or far from the public safety net.
2. Greed: Yet as someone pointed out recently, until a person gets good at gaming the system, greed does not get much scope for those on public assistance.
3. Laziness:
4: Ignorance:
5: I don’t how to label an idea I have that modern society is too difficult for people on the left side of the Bell Curve.
6. Cultural Demands: If you cannot live to TV show standards, you might as well give up.
I have to go to work now. Feel free to argue my points and add to them. I’ll be doing that myself, until I can return.
November 27th, 2012 | 7:37 am
[...] need to compromise their values. They need to do a better job of selling.” Many Source: Postmodern Conservative Category: Blogs and [...]
November 27th, 2012 | 9:24 am
7. Lack of desire/ambition – most people would like to be independent and successful. But only some are prepared to take the necessary risks to do so.
8. Lack of self awareness – some are not aware how important and meaningful earned success really is to happiness.
9. Nihilism – if you view existence as merely the period between birth and death, then eat drnk and be merry (on someone else’s dime) for in the long run we’re all dead.
November 27th, 2012 | 9:31 am
10. Narcicism – looking out for number one means making sure I get my piece of the entitlement pie before everyone else.
November 27th, 2012 | 11:11 am
11. Cynicism–The game is rigged by the rich, for the rich. There’s no way to get ahead on merit.
12. Naivete–The government is here to help me, and to punish the bad guys.
13. Entitlement–I am owed. The rich guy stole his, and the government is going to take some of that and give it to me.
There have been a few noises from folks (Jindal) about how the GOP needs to be anti-Big Government AND anti-Big Business (an untold story of the past campaign is how many conservatives were opposed to Mitt because of his support of TARP, but since the official story is that TARP was unquestionably A Good Thing, this got suppressed), which is 100% correct–”crony capitalism” should be quite catchy and easy to communicate–but I don’t see how this is going to penetrate the populace given the despicable state of the MSM.
November 27th, 2012 | 2:05 pm
There has been an element of anti-big-government/anti-big-business in the GOP since Herbert Hoover. Wasn’t that the essential point of Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex? Did Reagan champion big business? he always paid tribute to small businesses. I skip Nixon and Ford because I never really understood either of them and do not see the same ethic.
Thank you for your contributions and helping me think about this. You guys see people on public assistance as much more purposeful than I do. I do believe there are people like that. I just don’t know that most people are all that intentionally venal. At the cc I see a whole lot of ineptitude. Some of it is from inadequate education or abysmal acculturation — the nihilism issue is an example. The sense of entitlement can come from those things, too, although that is not always a matter of thinking that government owes them. Often the sense is that one must have things like cars and cell phones and all of the stuff that Best Buy and Walmart have to offer. How does one have the means? Modern materialism says one must have those things to be fully human, which is a distortion of our humanity, isn’t it?
November 27th, 2012 | 2:31 pm
Kate, hence my point number 8: lack of self awareness. In my opinion it all comes down to what constitutes happiness. The ‘stuff’ one procures from a Best Buy or Walmart is really the material people use to distract them from this more important question, or, to be more precise, from the awareness of there being a question to begin with.
In my opinion things like Nihilism, Narcicism, Cynicism, Naivete and Entitlement ensue not out of purpose, but from the lack of awareness of the deeper question motivating the need for the clutter of distraction.
I realize I’m shamelessly stealing from Pascal, but there it is.
November 27th, 2012 | 4:11 pm
Are we permitted to point to farm subsidies, bidness tax loopholes, and all the wonderful and splendid entitlements inserted into the federal budget to aid and assist those who are rather well off? I mean aren’t these people parasites as well even though they are self aware, narcissistic, and, at times, nihilistic?
November 27th, 2012 | 6:58 pm
Robert, good point. Maybe we can distill it to list friendly terms.
How about…
14. Subconsciously habituated to government subsidizes goodies.
It still needs some streamlining to one or two words.
November 27th, 2012 | 7:09 pm
Not now, Bob. All those folks are engaged in free enterprise. Or rather, not quite free enterprise. I don’t like corporate welfare, but given the way government rides the business sector, business pushing and pressing government for such stuff seems like self-defense. There are two sides to farm subsidies — what farmers can and cannot plant and how much profit they can make on what they produce — gee whiz. Business tax loopholes counteract absurd regulations and mandates.
Did you see the latest from Warren Buffett? Much of his wealth derives from how he uses government for his benefit. How does anyone see him as a harmless old duffer who just wants the best for the common man? He eats the common man.
In any case, it is a different matter because right now I am worrying about those people who have refused to engage in free enterprise. You know, those who would be as the lilies of the field “they grow: they toil not, neither do they spin” but whose faith for sustenance is not in God, but in Gov.
November 27th, 2012 | 8:13 pm
Pseudoplotinus, humanness is not always lovely, that’s for sure. Maybe you are right, but there are an awful lot of people I meet who haven’t got the capacity to be self-aware in the way you are discussing. At the moment I wonder if they are the meek in spirit who will inherit the Earth.
November 27th, 2012 | 8:30 pm
Kate, the people you’re referring to are the spawn, if not Satan, surely LBJ and have freely chosen to be lay abouts.
Re: my inclusion of certain bidness (both large and small, btw) types, I do disagree with your kind negation. However, these folks too are ‘playin” the gummint albeit from a different angle. One group does it in order lay about while another does it to increase profits, then lay about in Acapulco-sp or the south of France (I prefer the south of France, myself). But, both are gaming the American taxpayer, aren’t they?
Interestingly, one group breeds and the gummint pays ‘em; the other group breeds and they get abortions, some of which may be gummint subsidized. Hey, this is the kinda stuff Voegelin speaks of when he’s talking about civilizations collapsing. And really, we’re giving examples of a people losing their virtue and thus, eventually their liberty.
November 27th, 2012 | 8:56 pm
Kate, I am thinking about Robert’s original post, which I seem to have misread to mean that many are receptive to Big Government solutions because they have been unconsciously habituated to its solutions over a long period of time.
It seems to me that at one time one could rely on the support of local family, communities and institutions that for various reasons are not so available today. Maybe the disappearance of those communities and the corresponding expansion of government in individual lives may have naturally produced a shift in the expectation of Americans to expect from government what once was supported by local institutions such as church and societies.
One affirmation of this theory is what I have been hearing regarding the voting patterns of single women versus married women. The latter being dramatically more inclined to voting Republican than the former. So with regard to the (very) local institution of marriage, the voting pattern of women shifts depending on whether they are included or not.
So maybe number 14 should be something like compensation for the absence of local supporting communities.
November 27th, 2012 | 10:05 pm
Yes, Pseudoplotinus, we have succumbed, we have been seduced by the siren sound of gummint. When, in fact, we should have clung, dearly, to the church, the neighborhood, the generosity of the Masons, Knights of Columbus, Eagles, Elks, et al.
Oh, the evil inherent in the black hearts of the consolidators!
November 27th, 2012 | 10:07 pm
OK: I’m moved to de-lurk.
So–my mother fits squarely into the 47%. She has Alzheimer’s and lives in a nursing home thanks to Medicaid. Would she be… what? Lazy? Ignorant? Nihilistic? Greedy? Or is she best grouped alongside the spawn of Satan/LBJ who have “freely chosen to be layabouts?”
Or what about those born into poverty, raised in impoverished neighborhoods, educated in underfunded/overcrowded schools, and ineligible for most high-paying or stable vocations and for whom higher education seems like an impossible dream? When exactly did they choose their lot in life? Is it really just a lack of good old American self-awareness that keeps them from starting a small business or enrolling in a quality university?
This list is seeming less and less like a serious effort to understand the mindset of those who use and support government assistance and more like a brainstorming session for vicious stereotypes of poor and/or truly helpless people.
The appeal of “The Life of Julia” is that it provides a vivid and attractive realization of what it means for a government to “promote the general Welfare,” securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. I agree with McGurn that, thus far, those who disagree with the Julia vision of government haven’t done much to make their alternative case nearly as clear or compelling. This list does not represent a step in that direction.
Might I suggest that “public assistance” and “entitlement programs” are too broad and diffuse as categories to allow for any useful characterizations of those who use them? What exactly do you mean? Social security? Medicaid? Corporate welfare? Child tax breaks? Student loans? (Police? Fire departments? The armed forces?) I would guess that you see some of these services as proper and necessary public services and some not. Can you make that distinction clearer?
November 28th, 2012 | 11:41 am
Mr. Fletcher, thank you for your post. I suspect Kate had a much more subversive motive in posting her original comment and that is to bring about exactly the discussion you have initiated.
So, let me start by presenting to you another member of the 47% that I happen to know alongside your mother. That individual would be my 25 year old nephew, Tom. Throughout the presidential election I could be assured that on virtually a daily basis my nephew Tom would post some Obama 2012 campaign blurb on my facebook wall. If anyone among his facebook friends posted anything promoting Romney, or critical of Obama, my nephew Tom would bulldog like pick an ugly facebook fight with said friend, no doubt to the annoyance of the rest of his friends who had to watch the partisan display on their walls (assuming they didn’t hide him.)
There was a good reason Tom had all that time to make the case for his preferred candidate, because Tom wasn’t employed, not because he couldn’t get a job, but because he couldn’t get the particular kind of employment that he wanted. You see, Tom was a certified CPA and early in his career he decided he just didn’t care for that line of work. Instead, he got a degree in, I believe it was called ‘Economic Crime’ and has been trying to get on the FBI payroll for the last couple of years. The problem is that Tom has been trying to get a job where there is a long line of competitors who have extensive experience in the military or police service, compared to his two pieces of paper. So in the meantime, instead of getting a job and contributing value to the economy, he is living with his parents and benefitting from unemployment, and Obama sponsored healthcare and to this day spends a good portion of his facebook time picking partisan fight on behalf of his favorite political leader.
So John, let me suggest to you that when we are having this discussion we are not talking about those like your mother who have every entitlement to support, but those like my nephew who could be getting a job but feel entitled to remain unemployed for a variety of reasons that we on this thread are attempting to explore.
But your point of “public assistance” being too broad a category to characterize those dependant on it is very relevant. Let me suggest the following approach.
Over at the American Enterprise Institute, Arthur C. Brooks has been building his career as an expert on the role of Free Enterprise as a path to meaningful expressions of personal flourishing, he wrote a great book some years ago called Gross National Happiness, and more recently a book called The Road to Freedom, both of which built on a lot of sociological data that indicates that the happiest people in the country are those who attained what he refers to as ‘Earned Success’ which is defined broadly as succeeding in some vocation by virtue of producing some form of meaningful value to society. In this case value is broadly understood but could refer to a flourishing small business, the products of an artistic career, or perhaps some form of not for profit endeavor like hospice work. The point is that meaningful productivity is an important part of happiness, and Brooks contrasts this picture of flourishing with its counterpart which he refers to as ‘Learned Helplessness’ which essentially amounts to lives that have suffered atrophy by virtue of being highly dependent on others generosity, and therefore lacking exactly that kind of initiative that is essential to attaining ‘Earned Success’ in ones life.
So, here is where I think our characterization can benefit from greater clarity. At the risk of pilfering shamelessly from the Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitzin, let me suggest that the line that separates those characterized by the qualities associated with ‘Earned Success’ versus ‘Learned Helplessness’ does not rune between groups of people, such as Romney’s cartoonish 53% vs the 47%, but in fact RUNS DOWN THE MIDDLE OF EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US.
What I am saying is the capacity for ‘Earned Success’ versus ‘Learned Helplessness’ is shared by everyone, and it is for each individual to decide what aspect of themselves that they are going to attempt to nurture or neglect.
Once we have this picture in our minds then we can have the following discussion: what role does society and government policy have in nurturing or neglecting these two diametrically opposed capacities in each of us? A good argument could be made that government can help nurture ‘Earned Success’ through such services as public education, the GI Bill and so on. But other policies such as extended unemployment benefits, and accessible healthcare make it easier for some to opt out of the workforce like my nephew, who in other words are acting out of learn helplessness.
So I think it is reasonable to agree that some government policies can have an empowering effect on our capacity for ‘Earned Success’ and other policies can have a deteriorating effect on that capacity. And some services are better provided by other more local communities rather than the government for these same reasons.
In my opinion, the discussion we are having here is what are the reasons that so many people seem to operate out of ‘Learned Helplessness’ in their political sensibilities and not, it seems, out of an awareness of the importance of ‘Earned Success’ specifically as it relates to the important role of Free Enterprise as one very important expression of Earned Success without which a healthy, free and flourishing society becomes far more remote a possibility.
I hope this helps.
November 28th, 2012 | 6:07 pm
It helps me. That was my point, or part of it. There are people who are truly helpless. Whether that should be problem for the federal government is an argument. That it is a societal problem and needs to be addressed by government on some level is true. If “the general welfare” really included care for the ill and indigent you’d think the Congress of the early republic would have addressed that. There were signers in that body who never seem to have considered legislation about that; it was a community matter.
But that’s history. What do we do now? We clearly cannot afford an entitlement state as we have now. It is putting us in deep debt. What will do about that?
WE know that if we confiscated all the wealthy of the wealthy who the president wants to tax it wouldn’t the federal bills for more than a few weeks at most. We cannot afford to eat the rich and it wouldn’t do us any long term good. What will we do?
I want to think about why we even have the portion of the 47% who are like Pseudoplotinus’ nephew. In a sense, he’s like the iceberg tip, the educated who skate by as he does. I see students I have who have been on public assistance for years. Most appalling are the ones who know how to game the system and who come to my class on the first day and I never see them again. But really, my heart goes out to those who seem unable to cope with modern life. Seriously, how is it that Julia can never cope with American life as it is?
I understand the anger expressed above, but really, I have sympathy for people who cannot cope with their own lives. Maybe it is a matter of learned helplessness. The federal government spends a whole lot of money to send me my students to make them able to cope. Some of them cannot cope with my English class. I teach required courses, and reading what they write, wonder what possible job there is for them in the modern workplace.
What do we do about that? I am not sure and am not sure anyone knows what to do about that. Pouring money into poverty doesn’t seem to have helped the situation. And it all is muddled in together. And we cannot afford to do what we are doing, so what are we going to do?
I am so sorry for your mother. How awful for her and for you. About the other types of people dependent on government; I am asking questions because I think we all need better answers. I do not just mean Republicans, but Democrats, too.
November 28th, 2012 | 7:18 pm
“I want to think about why we even have the portion of the 47% who are like Pseudoplotinus’ nephew.”
It’s quite clear why. Look at stuff like this. (Yeah, Zero Hedge is a paranoid nuthouse, but they’re plenty right about our current unsustainable system.)
We’re headed for a collapse very soon. That’s one way to not worry too much about Mitt’s defeat–he wasn’t going to avert the implosion anyway.
November 28th, 2012 | 7:20 pm
This comment was inspired by Kate, as well as the previous poster-whose pen name I will not begin to spell.
If I may begin with the case of the mother of John Fletcher, then my heart goes out to both of you. My mother passed away 10 years ago, and hardly a day goes past when I do not think of her. She lived to the age of 74, and raised five sons with dad’s help. My brother and I were able to help care for mother as her health faded, with the help of a private nurse when we were at work.
If only we strengthened the bonds within our families in this country, then we would not have to rely on government services. And more importantly, our relationships with our elderly parents, brothers, and sisters would be strengthened by a community of love. Let us apply the rugged American spirit of independence to caring for our loved ones, to making room in our lives, and room in our homes to care for the needs of, at least, our brothers.
November 28th, 2012 | 10:50 pm
The founders never intended for the general gummint to act as any kind of entitlement agency. Madison even refused, during his presidency, to send $25,000 to aid some starving French Hugenots-sp down at Marietta, Ohio. He said that was not the central gummints obligation, and he was right.
Entitlements, welfare belong to the states, period. But, try and tell a Rino or Commie-Dem that!
November 28th, 2012 | 11:54 pm
@ Kate:
“Did you see the latest from Warren Buffett? Much of his wealth derives from how he uses government for his benefit. How does anyone see him as a harmless old duffer who just wants the best for the common man? He eats the common man.”
Thank you for this observation. His image is worse than a mirage, it’s a fraud.
Last year, he was arguing his 2002 tax bill while complaining taxes were too low.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html
Hardly a source that’s hostile to the left.
November 29th, 2012 | 11:54 am
I appreciate the thoughtful replies and expressions of support. (We’re fine, btw–well, as fine as anyone in this all-too-common situation can be.)
I gather that there’s general consensus that there are, as Kate said, those who are “legitimately helpless” and benefit from public assistance. The concern seems to be more on the non-helpless who “mooch” off of a system intended to help the helpless. It is alarming how often a focus on the latter eclipses acknowledgment of the former, so that anyone relying on government for any reason becomes a “taker.”
So far, both of the examples presented–my mother and Psuedoplotinus’s nephew–are anecdotes. They indicate two different kinds of recipients of public assistance, but by themselves they give no indication of how representative they are of the whole of “public assistance.” Some questions:
1) Assuming we’re just talking about government assistance for poor and/or helpless people [bracketing for now the important question of how corporations use public assistance], what does research–sociological, ethnographic, anthropological, etc.–indicate about the breakdown of “legitimately helpless” versus “moochers” (who have in some sense adopted a false sense of helplessness)? Surely getting a firmer grasp on just how big of a problem we’re talking about here is a necessary step.
2) I recall after the initial 47% statement a ton of breakdowns of the statistics, most of which indicated that the majority of those not paying income taxes were either seniors or the working poor, neither of which seems quite like the moocher example. Where on a continuum of legitimately helpless to fake-helpless are these statistically significant groups?
3) Speaking of which, what exactly is the line between legitimately helpless and illegitimately helpless? What’s the criterion of legitimacy? This question also relates to the discourse of “learned helplessness,” which strikes me as something of a loaded term. We don’t talk about our reliance on publicly funded armed forces as “learned helplessness,” even though in some sense it is. What distinguishes legitimate reliance on assistance from illegitimate reliance? Why is some reliance “learned helplessness” rather than trust?
4) To return to the popular appeal of the Julia model: I confess I’m skeptical that the free market (also a term in need of some tying down) really offers any viable alternative to Julia. A great deal of our economy relies on low-wage jobs that offer very little in the way of benefits or stability. For many people just barely getting by working in such a job (or working two or more part-time jobs), a mundane event like getting the flu or breaking a leg is a major disaster. They don’t have sick leave. They can’t miss work. They don’t have health insurance or employment insurance. From a purely free-market perspective, it’s not their employers’ fault they got sick, and it’s only sensible to fire and replace someone who can’t do the job. I would like to hear how the “free market” offers a viable solution for these people. It won’t do simply to suggest that people in those jobs should just get better jobs. Such sub-par (low-wage/high-instability) jobs are features, not bugs, of our current economy. Barring some massive restructuring (a move likely to be seen as an attack on the free market), a sizable portion of our citizenry will always be in such jobs. What kind of counter-Julia cartoon would appeal to such people? Is there a similarly cradle-to-grave picture of free market rather than public/government support?
5) Finally, though I am glad that familial support worked well for Daniel’s situation, we should recognize that this solution simply isn’t viable for many. To mobilize my own story again (I’m not fishing for sympathy, just trying to make a point), my mother requires 24/7 support beyond our financial/logistical means to provide. My parents live in a very supportive environment. But the kind help of friends and community is no replacement for full-time, medically proficient care. I often hear stories of this or that local community/private foundation that provides wonderful options for people in similar situations. I have never seen any realistic suggestion about how such options might be provided on any kind of large scale (managed through what bureaucracy? paid for how? regulated/quality checked by whom?). Believe me, I know how troubled and inadequate public assistance systems can be, but what realistically can replace them for those who can’t afford or don’t have access to private support networks?
November 30th, 2012 | 11:32 am
I would like to echo John Fletcher on a couple of counts. There are the Welfare Rolls of our imagination, and then there are the particular people who are being served by them. Some game the system–and I, too, would be interested in knowing if there are any non-partisan studies that measure how many–and there are some who clearly who have real needs that surpass the abilities of families and local communities to help them.
The bias at this blog seems to be that most are in the former category and that public assistance programs promote a culture of dependency and helplessness that would be best remedied by a little tough love.
No doubt some people would be well served by such a remedy, but it seems to me to be the application of a moral principle that is imposed in a historical/cultural vacuum, which is primarily defined not by the conditions of the early republic but by conditions imposed by the creative/destructive effects of contemporary corporate capitalism and the consumerism that largely drives it. If we are going to accept that capitalism is a force mostly for the good, and I do, then we have to accept that it is profoundly disruptive and destabilizing and that the scale of those disruptions overwhelm the capacities of local social organizations to cope with them.
There is no force in the history of the world that has had a greater destructive or more disruptive effect on traditional communities, their traditions, and the values that gave them coherence. The welfare state developed as a practical response to those disruptive effects not out of some Marxists’ fevered imagination.
If there’s a principle that should obtain here, it’s the principle of subsidiarity. It recognizes that the most important stuff is going on at the bottom of the hierarchy, and that the people there should be left alone with as little interference as possible from higher levels of organization, but when the resources at the lower levels are exhausted or overwhelmed, the just society or any society with humane instincts, finds a way to pool its resources to help out. And in a society as complex as ours, sometimes it’s only the Feds that have adequate resources to do so. Madison was wrong, even back then. And ask Chris Christie what he thinks about FEMA and the role of big government in the lives of the people of New Jersey.
November 30th, 2012 | 2:26 pm
Yes, conservatives can exhibit and express a heck of a lot of anger about entitlements. Tough love or a demand for more personal love sure can seem inadequate when faced with a person in need. The problem, Mr. Whelan, is that the Feds do not have the resources. Hence, we are in a deep hole of debt. Nothing anyone is talking about to solve the budget problems we have looks to be enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and I think we could call public assistance well-intentioned. It also seems to be leading the US into a kind of hell; gentlemen, the US is in debt and cannot pay its bills. We approach default. We cannot afford to do what we do. Cashing in the defense budget wouldn’t cover entitlement spending for a year. Give me another option, please.
We might be better able to afford those programs if capitalism had a freer rein; a roaring economy covers a multitude of ills with a broad and plentiful tax base. We are suffering because we haven’t had that for a few years and stimulus spending has exacerbated the problem, while applying bandaids in a few places. We bleed debt.
I know, Mr Whelan blames capitalism for disruption, but look at the communist countries that fell and how their people suffered, especially those who could not work. Economic disruptions happen in any system and some people profit. In a free enterprise system, more people profit. We are not the only nation struggling with unwieldy welfare programs. Look at how Sweden and other democratic socialist countries that are scrambling to cover their redistributionist policies — Sweden’s tax rate approaches 60% and drives business out. Look at what has happened in Greece and Spain, etc., who, neither, can afford to support vast public welfare systems and are also insisting that nothing can be cut from national budgets.
The modern world does not have an answer for this and I see none in the responses here. The real difference between R’s & D’s is that R’s say we cannot afford this system and must do something and Ds say we cannot live without this system and paying for it is not as important as having it. Well, ok, the latter also say taxing the rich will do the trick, while the numbers show the rich are not rich enough. In response, the R’s say protect the rich, who might prosper and build enough raise all of us out of this mess. That’s politically unpopular, isn’t it?
The D’s seem to be trying to inflate the economy, devaluing currency and everything, to make the debt’s value shrink. The pain in the latter process is shared, but don’t the poor and lower middle classes suffer the most when prices rise? Then, for pity’s sake, we must help them more, which makes more debt and around we go again.
Being angry at the indigent does no good and I am addressing you, Bob. Sure there are slackers. Is dependence soul-sapping? People I know who are on public assitance often say so. Their relatives nearly always say so. Looking at inner-city culture, those who do not say so have no less a problem; it is a wasted and wasting culture. Wherein there is more to free enterprise than materialism, they are often missing that point.
Again, what the heck are we going to do?
November 30th, 2012 | 5:09 pm
“Being angry at the indigent does no good and I am addressing you, Bob.”
Ouch!! Kate! Hey, I’m the one working parttime at Wally World serving these people. The truth is some are parasites, but I think most would like a job that pays enough to “make a living.” Trouble is, back in the day, you could go to the mill at nineteen, or when you got home from the ‘Nam and get married, make a baby, buy a new house and do the American dream thing. No more; Wally World’s the new ‘mill’ and I’m telling you, at least anecdotally, that these kids today are very limited in their dreams, hopes, and ambitions.
So, Kate you’re right. A good dose of Capitalism would really help. Drilling for our abundant and cheap energy might bring back some manufacturing and revitalize the entire economy. There’s hope in that direction.
The other directions is the one we’re going in however, led by our marginally documents president and his coterie of statist hacks who want to continue sinking the American econmy and thus, making more and more Welfare Democrats.
Not much we can do about that. I voted for the other guy. We may be in some very deep doo here.
November 30th, 2012 | 7:48 pm
John,
One of the great things about Pomocon is that I’ve found it attracts a very high class of discussion from all sides of the political spectrum. However, what I’ve learned as a result of interchanges such as ours is how easy it is to selectively read someone else’s differing comments and take away only what one wants to respond to. And so what we choose to respond to from differing comments can often be very revealing about where our own biases lie. So I found your last post particularly interesting since after I pointed out that the issue of “Earned Success” and “Learned Helplessness” is better understood as an internal dilemma in each of us and NOT categories that describe whole groups of people, you respond with suggesting the issue of government involvement would be better understood if we knew what the breakdown of the ‘47%’ is.
My point is just an observation, not a criticism, but I think it points out that the discussion we are having is at risk of getting very confusing rather quickly unless we clarify exactly how our perspectives differ in what constitutes the primary problem here. My impression is that our difference is that you see the role of entitlements as simply a question of proper services to the proper groups of people whereas I see it as the effect such entitlements have on the character of people generally.
So let me explain to you by what I mean by ‘effects on the character of people’:
Ross Douthat from the NY Times gave a pretty comprehensive presentation around the arguments Arthur C. Brooks has made last October in a talk he gave over at that the University of Northern Carolina. If you’re interested, and you have an hour and a half, you can watch a streaming video here:
http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/youtubeplayer.aspx?file=HaJqGoKt6w4
But, assuming that you don’t have the time, I’ll summarize the points that are relevant to our conversation. Douthat’s critique of the problems of the effects of the welfare state begins with a presentation of some statistics about our Social Democratic friends in Europe versus the US regarding GDP trends, debt and fertility rates as a function of welfare state policies.
For instance:
1. Siting a series of articles by Jim Manzi, share of global GDP, for Europe since the seventies fell from 40% to 25% compared to the US which remained around 21%. In terms of per capita wealth adjusted for purchasing power this translates to $48-49K GDP per capita for Americans versus $31K for the EU with Germany, England and France being higher performing examples at 38K, 36K and 35K respectively.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-americas-edge
http://theamericanscene.com/2010/01/06/more-reactions-to-keeping-america-s-edge
2. He sites Megan Mcardle’s work at the Atlantic where she notes that demographic trends such as those in Italy characterize the chronic problem for the future of the European welfare state, as paying off welfare state scale debt becomes increasingly implausible as debt requires growth in GDP which presupposes a growing, and young population, versus Italy and the other European populations which are slowing, even shrinking, and getting older.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/europes-real-crisis/308915/
3. And most importantly he sites a series of reports from the National Bureau of Economic Research via Ramesh Ponnuru observing the compelling reverse correlation between European and American fertility trends and the size and timing of the growth in government pension systems with over half of the comparative greater drop in European fertility accounted for as a result of its sizable public pensions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301108/empty-playground-and-welfare-state-ramesh-ponnuru
The practical effects of this are obvious. Afterall, how does a welfare state pay for its entitlements with a shrinking workforce? But more importantly is what explains the causal relationship between shrinking population and entitlements?
Chantal Delsol, the contemporary French Philosopher whose name comes up on this blog more than a few times, supplies some answers in a book she wrote not too long ago called ‘Icarus Fallen’.
http://www.amazon.com/Icarus-Fallen-Meaning-Uncertain-Crosscurrents/product-reviews/1935191691/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
In her book, Delsol describes a European culture sapped of its vitality by the atrophy resulting from the Social Democratic project, specifically the assumptions underlying it which she terms the “sacralization of rights” which amounts to the celebration of entitlements as a rightful claim to human existence. Having replaced a classically western understanding of existence as a series of communal and societal obligations with existence as simply a long list of entitlements, life from the modern social democratic viewpoint becomes far less capable of supporting the burden of responsibilities entailed in family and community, the consequences of which I would suggest Douthat has effectively listed and which I summarize above. In my opinion this is all nicely paralleled in the decline of the political party that represents the Social Democratic counterpart in American who was once famous for phrases like “ask not what your country can do for you …” and now is famous precisely for expanding exactly what government does for us.
It occurs to me that even in the democratic party’s own promotional literature one can see the assumption Delsol describes. In fact I would argue that it represents a compelling point of contact between the famous Julia and my nephew Tom. If you recall Julia at one point has a child and we learn how an Obama administration helps Julia meet the needs of the child. But note there is no mention of a father. One could speculate why the Obama campaign opted to exclude such a detail. I suspect that they decided it was irrelevant to their narrative, which is in perfect keeping with an existence defined as a series of rights. Afterall, if Julia wants to have a child, why is a husband/father relevant? She has a right to her own life choices doesn’t she? Similarly my nephew thinks he should be exepted into the FBI despite lacking any relevant experience. And here is where my point about “Earned Success” versus “Learned Helplessness” as an internal dilemma becomes clarifying in understanding the effects of an entitlement society. For entitlements do not just compromise some of us, ie “the moochers”, but, in incremental ways, all of us. That is to say, it nourishes that part of us that is the most receptive to dependency, “learned helplessness”, if not in its entirety than in incremental ways that make us more reliant on something other than the more local communities to which we are bound.
The social democratic worldview is a post-obligatory world that attempts to create an environment that demands no more from us than what we choose to expect to be required from us. If you’re Julia, the expectation of having a father for your children isn’t required, if you’re Tom, my nephew, paying your dues in the tough business of law enforcement isn’t relevant. And as a result not only do we become a little less that what we could become, a better parent, a better FBI agent, etc, but society as a result will suffer the atrophy resulting from a lesser class of citizen which Douthat and Delsol effectively document in their own respective ways.
My point here is not to convince so much as to clarify that the question you are asking is not, to my mind, the question that needs to be asked. But that the problem regarding an entitlement state is in effects that are far less quantifiable than what comprises the 47%.
December 1st, 2012 | 1:58 am
@Kate Pitrone–
There seem to be two arguments advanced in this thread: 1. Entitlements corrupt the soul. 2. Entitlements are well intentioned but they are not affordable. I take it from your remarks, then, that you fall into the second camp. Am I correct?
If so, is it not interesting that a Democrat in the White House during the 90s balanced the budget and left a surplus and that the Republican that succeeded him created the debt to which you refer by cutting taxes while at the same time starting two unnecessary and morally ambiguous wars? And all this justified by Cheney’s dicta: “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” Remember Medicare Part D?
Should I assume, then, that as a matter of principle you dissociate yourself from the Republican Party, or at least its fiscal policies, which by its track record in office, regardless of its public image and its campaign propaganda, has proved it clearly does not care about running up huge debts.
I think that there are fairly strong arguments that this we-can’t-afford-it trope is a conservative self-fulfilling prophecy, fulfilled by the wanton fiscal irresponsibility of Republicans when they are in power.
So you misunderstand my point if you think I am blaming capitalism. I accept it as our reality as late moderns or early postmoderns, and I certainly don’t think that a command economy is an attractive or viable alternative. I’m for a mixed economy along the subsidiarist lines I described earlier. We determine what that mix should be through honest debate and the democratic process.
We can argue particulars another time, and certainly the devil is in the details, but I’m curious whether the principles that ground your arguments exclude subsidiarity. I assume you are familiar with the concept and its origins.
December 1st, 2012 | 9:05 am
I found this thread and exchange of views and concerns most illuminating, as well as conducted most civilly. To all participants, I send my sincere compliments and thanks. Kudos and commendations.
December 1st, 2012 | 10:39 am
Bob, I didn’t mean it to hut.
Pseudoplotinus, thank you for all that which is useful and more than I can take in right now.
Jack, do I have to choose? Both threads are part of my thought, although I confess I only mostly know what I think about all of this. Subsidiarity as defined, yes, its origins, possibly not. I like the idea of an orderly world and yes, local concerns ought to be seen to locally where the concern is most immediate. Based on my understand of my local government, there is a repetition of effort in public assistance with decreasing satisfaction as responsibility rises up the chain. “They don’t care!” is the cry on the ground. “Why should they? Who are you to them?” is my inevitable response. I’ll bet Chris Christie, while grateful for all the help he can get, sees better results with locals helping themselves and each other.
I am supposed to be on the road right now, going to help an artist sell her work at a show. Paul, I am glad you like the conversation; I do and will do another post considering all of these responses so we can continue the discussion.
Not that you all aren’t welcome to keep discussing this while I’m not watching. Complexity in the problem invites a variety of perspectives on a solution. I hope America (in the specific political sense of elected government and not just in some inchoate form here and there inn the blogosphere) finds a good answer or, in Bob’s terms, the doo will merely deepen.
December 1st, 2012 | 11:54 am
@ Jack
I very much concure, with some qualifications, with your first post, especially this observation that you make:
“If there’s a principle that should obtain here, it’s the principle of subsidiarity. It recognizes that the most important stuff is going on at the bottom of the hierarchy, and that the people there should be left alone with as little interference as possible from higher levels of organization, but when the resources at the lower levels are exhausted or overwhelmed, the just society or any society with humane instincts, finds a way to pool its resources to help out.”
And you may be surprised to find that a lot of the discussion occuring among thoughtful conservatives such as Douthat in his talk which I link to, are discussing the role of government in precisely the spirit of subsidiarity.
Since, at this point I’ve more than exceeded my quota of words for this thread I’ll just point out that the difference between the conservative application of this principle versus the liberal appearts to be two, both of which Douthat treats very effectively.
1. A state that has the resources to support the kind of services associated with a proper application of the principle of subsidiarity requires economic vitality which, historically, only free markets have been able to sustain.
2. But a pure Free Market model is inadaquate by itself since, as you note, the cultural effects of the Free Market only undermine societal cohesion, and so there must be a recognition for the importance of such cultural virtues as prudence, dilligence, compassion and an acknowledgement that we need institutions to support the flourishing of such virtues so that we have a Free Market that is practiced by a society with the necessary virtues that will make a society and a government both prosperous and compassionate.
Douthat sites the two antogonists from Capra’s “It’s a wonderful life” as examples when he states that by a Free Market society grounded in virtue we’re talking about a society with more George Bailey’s and fewer mean old Mr. Potter’s.
With that, I’ll await Kate’s next post.
I agree with Paul that this has been one of the good thread’s, and am glad Kate plans on conintuing this discussion in a future post.
December 1st, 2012 | 2:30 pm
Bracketing for the moment the affordability issue, it seems to me that there are two decision points when it comes to thinking clearly about entitlement policy. Given that we live in a fallen world and that no social system is perfect or can be, is there a net positive or net negative in using taxpayer dollars to deliver services to people who do in fact need them–kids, elderly poor, working poor, disabled, the temporarily laid off?
I guess you know where I stand on that issue, and my guess is that most conservatives would agree, that gov’t has some role in providing for the real needs of people who have no other recourse. The next decision point is how you structure these programs to mitigate abuses.
I’m no expert, but from a quick internet search, the official rate of welfare fraud right now is 2-3%. So let’s assume it’s under reported and double that and say it’s 6%. Is that a problem? Yes.
Are there some in the remaining 94% that technically qualify but who are not really “needy”. Well, maybe, so make some adjustments to the qualification criteria. But don’t dismantle the whole system. It’s doing good things for people who do really need help that their families and churches cannot provide. And even the parasitic relative on unemployment benefits runs out of them and then must deal with the real world.
We live in a society, supposedly one with a Christian ethos. When I hear some conservatives speak, particularly Christian conservatives, it’s shocking to me that the society they seem to want is shaped more by Social Darwinist ideas than Christian ones. And when I hear “We can’t afford it” it really means, “I don’t want to pay for it. I’m a winner, and to hell with the losers.”
This is not a question of left or right ideology, but of coming up with practical solutions to real human problems.
I don’t know, but it seems for some of the commenters here that the potential for abuse is so prominent in their thinking about entitlements, that they diminish the real good they do for people in genuine need. Would it be better for families, churches, and local communities to be able to handle these needs?
Yes. Face-to-face is always better than the impersonal bureaucracy. And there are plenty of organizations that do this face-to-face work, but ask those who do this work for the churches and other private-sector charities, and they will tell you that the scale of the problems far exceed their capability to deal with them.
The problem is scale, and unfortunately the scale of the problems requires large organizations to deal with them adequately. The constitution was constructed for a country with 5 million people, not 330 million. Some adjustments are required, don’t you think?
December 2nd, 2012 | 9:29 am
Mr. Whelan, I was reading your last post with pleasure and profit, when I encountered your last (rhetorical) question and its predecessor. It left me puzzled, since it brought to the fore something I hadn’t seen coming: the Constitution. Since the Constitution and constitutionalism are something that all Americans (should) share, perhaps you could expound a bit on what you had in mind? In particular, it seems to me that you have a view of “what conservatives think about the Constituition” — which you find inadequate. Perhaps your tacit view on both the Constitution and conservatives’ views thereof would be worth exploring on this, or another, thread. I would think it would, in part because of something that PP has introduced into the discussion: what I (and others) call “the regime” and its effects on the soul. You’ve introduced the notion of subsidiarity (something, by the way PP, that Delsol has written on extensively); in more constitutional parlance, we would have to talk about federalism and limited government. I don’t want to deflect attention from the real focus of this thread, but it does seem to me worthwhile to at least acknowledge the constitutional framework within which we Americans are debating these issues. Happy Sunday to all.
A friendly (admittedly pedantic) final point: “to cite” = to reference, to quote; “to site” = to locate (from a Latin word, situs, I think, hence our word “situation”). Forgive me, I’ve been grading papers the past few days … .
December 2nd, 2012 | 1:52 pm
Ha! Thanks for that Paul. Clearly I could use a proof reader or two.
December 2nd, 2012 | 4:12 pm
Kate,
Before this very good thread becomes consigned to the oblivion that awaits it once if falls off the front page of the website, let me attempt to distill what I take from the apparent contrast in arguments between the two sides of this thread.
It seems to me John and Jack appears to see the problem of entitlements in technical terms, ie. how to get the right services to the right people, whereas they have not been particularly responsive to arguments coming from the problem of entitlements in terms of its effects on virtue.
So perhaps reason number 15 should be the following:
15. A tacit technocratic view that has a blindspot for the virtuecratic problems of the entitlement state.
Hope this makes it into you’re next post.
Thanks again to everyone for this very good exchange.
December 2nd, 2012 | 7:57 pm
Mr. Whelan:
“And when I hear “We can’t afford it” it really means, “I don’t want to pay for it. I’m a winner, and to hell with the losers.”
Really?
Let’s be honest. The entire federal transfer of wealth system is corrupt. Let’s forget about ‘saving’ it. The system itself is corrupt.
Make largesse for the indigent a function of the state, where it’s always belonged. Surely, as ‘conservatives,’ that’s the only moral response to the issue?
March 28th, 2013 | 3:31 pm
[...] life or death also seems evident. What we can do to change, to improve that problem, I am still open to suggestions. Tweet Comments [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact