Can The American Welfare State Be Changed?
You’re missing a lot if you’ve never watched an Uncommon Knowledge video. The videos feature Hoover Institution fellow Peter Robinson interviewing political leaders, distinguished scholars, and leading journalists.
One of the latest is Robinson's interview with William Voegeli, author of “Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State.” (see book cover below). I still have a few more pages to read, but I can say that it’s a book worth reading if you wish to understand the growth of America’s welfare state. Here’s what GoodReads.com says about Voegeli’s “Never Enough:”
“Since the beginning of the New Deal, American liberals have insisted that the government must do more-much more-to help the poor, to increase economic security, to promote social justice and solidarity, to reduce inequality, and to mitigate the harshness of capitalism. Nonetheless, liberals have never answered, or even acknowledged, the corresponding question: What would be the size and nature of a welfare state that was not contemptibly austere, that did not urgently need new programs, bigger budgets, and a broader mandate? Even though the federal government's outlays have doubled every eighteen years since 1940, liberal rhetoric is always addressed to a nation trapped in Groundhog Day, where every year is 1932, and none of the existing welfare state programs that spend tens of billions of dollars matter, or even exist.
“Never Enough explores the roots and consequences of liberals' aphasia about the welfare state's ultimate size. It assesses what liberalism's lack of a limiting principle says about the long-running argument between liberals and conservatives, and about the policy choices confronting America in a new century. Never Enough argues that the failure to speak clearly and candidly about the welfare state's limits has grave policy consequences. The worst result, however, is the way it has jeopardized the experiment in self-government by encouraging Americans to regard their government as a vehicle for exploiting their fellow-citizens, rather than as a compact for respecting one another's rights and safeguarding the opportunities of future generations.”
Here’s how Big Government introduces Peter Robinson’s interview with Voegeli:"
“The welfare state isn’t going anywhere. The current debate is, as our recent guest William Voegeli argues, simply “narcissism of small differences.” It will surely mean a nasty fight, but it won’t end with any dramatic changes to the public’s philosophy of government and what it is meant to do or provide. The truth is – people like getting stuff. And politicians have no incentive to be clear about how the welfare state works. Instead, they are comfortable with the vast majority of the public fundamentally misunderstanding social security and welcome the welfare state’s ability to buy off voters.
“Why so pessimistic? As Voegeli argues in the episode below, “liberal victories advance liberalism. Conservative victories postpone liberalism.” Even in the reign of the Republican Party from 1980 – 2007 (where the GOP controlled any combination of the White House, House and Senate), the cost of the welfare state ballooned 77%.
“No one under the age of 45 has any memory of government being organized any differently – FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society fundamentally changed the intellectual framework for our government, We went from a limited constitutional government to a more energetic, powerful government that can (try to) solve people’s problems. Voegeli, while submitting to the reality of a continued welfare state, argues that the GOP needs to find a welfare state that we can live with and admire. One that creates a social safety net that actually helps those who really need it, without propping up and enabling those that don’t and/or spending money that we simply do not have.
“For a historical look at the creation of the welfare state, its growth and continuation (and thoughts on what to do about it) . . . .”
You can watch the interview at either of:
- Big Government -- just short of 38 minutes
- You Tube (“William Voegeli -- The American Welfare State”) -- ditto on time
Mr. Voegeli also appeared at a “book event” at the Heritage Foundation on June 22, 2010. The event’s video is just under 56 minutes in length, and is described as follows:
“While politicians blame party rivals for the impending economic and political crisis, the growing reliance on government assistance, and the projected $10 trillion debt over the next decade, the American people are left with ambiguous rhetoric, unanswered questions, and anxiety over their financial futures. In his debut publication, Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State, William Voegeli argues that the failure to speak clearly and candidly about the welfare state’s limits has wide-reaching and grave consequences, as America continues to incur obligations it can’t afford while failing to establish priorities for the welfare state’s finite resources. Devoting particular attention to liberals’ failure – or refusal – to provide a limiting principle and rigorous criteria for the welfare state, Voegeli shatters liberal arguments that the government needs still more dramatic expansions of its spending and programs to meet its obligations. Never Enough assesses what liberalism’s lack of a limiting principle means for the decades-old argument between liberals and conservatives as well as the policy choices confronting America in a new century.”
Additional resources include this 7-minute C-SPAN video, this George Will column at the Albany Times Union, or this book review by history and humanities professor Fred Siegel posted at the Claremont Review of Books. Professor Siegel summarizes his book review this way:
“Never Enough, the best book written on liberalism in recent decades, is an essential read for understanding how we came to this pass. It articulates the understandings of what the Tea Partiers fear and denounce but aren't able to explain. What's missing, however, is the sense of how liberalism transformed itself over time from believing in the possibilities of human perfectibility, to believing in government as an inexhaustible source of patronage and entitlements. The rapaciousness of this new framework may undermine itself. If so, Voegeli's well-argued critique will have been too pessimistic.”
