The Politics Of The Social Safety Net

LAST WEEK I participated in a voter roundtable on Social Safety Nets at KPLU, a local Puget Sound NPR affiliate. Reporter Paula Wissel played us some audio clips from presidential speeches on Social Security, Medicare, and welfare, and then we got to talk about our feelings.

As you’d expect, there was an unspoken assumption that “safety net” and “government program” are just about one and the same thing. President Hoover was presented recommending good old American self-reliance in the depths of the Great Depression. President Roosevelt was presented upbraiding Republicans who said they were all in favor of social programs, but just not this program. President Reagan was presented railing against welfare queens, and we heard President Bush vainly trying to persuade Americans that Social Security was unfair.

You can imagine that it was difficult to introduce the radical conservative idea that government programs like Social Security actually fray the social fabric, leading to holes in the social safety net. Conservatives believe that when people don’t have to rely on their families, their churches, their neighbors, and their own mutual-aid associations, they let their social ties fall into neglect. When ties of obligation are neglected, conservatives believe, we get exactly today’s heedless, selfish society in which the vulnerable slide into pathology and social deprivation and children grow up in torment.

Of course, traditional social institutions aren’t perfect. Indeed, one of the reasons why our liberal friends so enthusiastically encourage the growth of government programs is that they want to free people from the tyranny of traditional social frameworks. When liberals rail against racism, sexism, and classism, they are reminding us that the traditional social safety net was oppressive and exclusionary, narrow in its trust, rigid in its structure.

It is the glory of our liberal friends that they oppose these social evils and fight for equality, for simple human dignity, and for a creative approach to life.

But sometimes our liberal friends get carried away. It is one thing to help a neighbor or a family member in need. It is another thing to build a vast government system of welfare that makes the working poor look like chumps. It is wonderful to celebrate invention and creativity, but another thing to insist that the collapse of the traditional family is merely a matter of “diverse life-styles.”

That is why conservatives champion a moderate balance between the extreme social tyranny of traditional society and the extreme social anarchy of the liberal welfare state. That’s why Peter L. Berger and Richard John Neuhaus wrote To Empower People: From State to Civil Society back in 1977.

The problem with the modern era, they wrote, is its “historically unprecedented dichotomy between public and private life.” On the one hand there are the “megastructures,” big government, big business, and various educational and professional bureaucracies. On the other hand there is the private life of the individual.

The megastructures are typically alienating, that is, they are not helpful in providing meaning and identity for individual existence. Meaning, fulfillment, and personal identity are to be realized in the private sphere.

Left to his own devices, the individual becomes “uncertain and anxious.” But there is a way to alleviate the alienation of the megastructures and the anxiety of individuality. It is through membership in the “mediating structures” between individual and megastructure. They represent the individual in dealings with the megastructures and provide meaning and identity in face-to-face social networks. By mediating structures, Berger and Neuhaus mean “neighborhood, family, church, and voluntary association.”

This is not new, of course. Edmund Burke said it first in the modern era:

To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle... of public affections.

But the mediating structures are the same institutions that were, in the old days, the agents of oppression. When liberals hear talk of empowering families they fear the return of the patriarchy. When they read about faith-based initiatives they fear a return to superstition and bigotry. That is why they want to bypass these institutions with their government-to-individual safety net.

Let’s admit that liberals have a point. But let us insist that liberals are wrong.

If we empower families and churches we do not immediately bring back the patriarchy or burning at the stake. But if we reduce them to impotence by replacing them with a government safety net we do not create a happy world of liberated individuals. We create a pathological underclass just like the one we have today.

Conservatives are the moderates here. We want to strike a balance between two extremes. We want a society mid way between the pre-industrial world with its rigid hierarchies and the opposite extreme of the alienated individual abandoned in a wilderness of big government programs.

We say: let’s create a civil society in which ordinary people get to create a people-friendly safety net through people-sized institutions in which anyone can lend a hand.

One day, we recklessly dream, maybe the folks at NPR will understand what we are talking about.

Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com. His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.

print view

To comment on this article at American Thinker click here.

To email the author, click here.

TAGS

Action

The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness... But to make a man act [he must have] the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness.
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

Chappies

“But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.” —Freddy Arbuthnot
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison

China and Christianity

At first, we thought [the power of the West] was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity.
David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing

Churches

[In the] higher Christian churches� they saunter through the liturgy like Mohawks along a string of scaffolding who have long since forgotten their danger. If God were to blast such a service to bits, the congregation would be, I believe, genuinely shocked. But in the low churches you expect it every minute.
Annie Dillard, Holy the Firm

Civil Society

“Civil Society”—a complex welter of intermediate institutions, including businesses, voluntary associations, educational institutions, clubs, unions, media, charities, and churches—builds, in turn, on the family, the primary instrument by which people are socialized into their culture and given the skills that allow them to live in broader society and through which the values and knowledge of that society are transmitted across the generations.
Francis Fukuyama, Trust

Class War

In England there were always two sharply opposed middle classes, the academic middle class and the commercial middle class. In the nineteenth century, the academic middle class won the battle for power and status... Then came the triumph of Margaret Thatcher... The academics lost their power and prestige and... have been gloomy ever since.
Freeman Dyson, “The Scientist as Rebel”

Conservatism

Conservatism is the philosophy of society. Its ethic is fraternity and its characteristic is authority — the non-coercive social persuasion which operates in a family or a community. It says ‘we should...’.
Danny Kruger, On Fraternity

Conservatism's Holy Grail

What distinguishes true Conservatism from the rest, and from the Blair project, is the belief in more personal freedom and more market freedom, along with less state intervention... The true Third Way is the Holy Grail of Tory politics today - compassion and community without compulsion.
Minette Marrin, The Daily Telegraph

Conversion

“When we received Christ,” Phil added, “all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.”
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh

Democratic Capitalism

I mean three systems in one: a predominantly market economy; a polity respectful of the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and a system of cultural institutions moved by ideals of liberty and justice for all. In short, three dynamic and converging systems functioning as one: a democratic polity, an economy based on markets and incentives, and a moral-cultural system which is plural and, in the largest sense, liberal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism

Drang nach Osten

There was nothing new about the Frankish drive to the east... [let] us recall that the continuance of their rule depended upon regular, successful, predatory warfare.
Richard Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion

Education

“We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.”
E. G. West, Education and the State

mysql close