A Conservative Welfare State Revisited
Having touched on the topic of conservative alternatives to the welfare state last week, I heartily encourage the Ricochet family to spend a lunch break (believe me, you'll need that much time) with a wonderful piece on the same topic that the incomparable Yuval Levin has penned in the new issue of National Affairs.
The essay-length piece is classic Yuval: deeply thought, admirably disciplined, and beautifully written. The piece really does deserve to be consumed in full, but here are two elegant passages to whet your appetite.
On the administrative state:
In our everyday experience, the bureaucratic state presents itself not as a benevolent provider and protector but as a corpulent behemoth — flabby, slow, and expressionless, unmoved by our concerns, demanding compliance with arcane and seemingly meaningless rules as it breathes musty air in our faces and sends us to the back of the line. Largely free of competition, most administrative agencies do not have to answer directly to public preferences, and so have developed in ways that make their own operations easier (or their own employees more contented) but that grow increasingly distant from the way we live.
And on the moral reasoning undergirding the progressive vision:
As Irving Kristol put it in 1997, "The secular, social-democratic founders of the modern welfare state really did think that in the kind of welfare state we have today people would be more public-spirited, more high-minded, more humanly ‘fulfilled.'" They were wrong about this for the same reason that their expectations of the administrative state have proven misguided — because their understanding of the human person was far too shallow and emaciated. They assumed that moral problems were functions of material problems, so that addressing the latter would resolve the former, when the opposite is more often the case. And guided by the ethic of the modern left, they imagined that traditional institutions like the family, the church, and the local association were sources of division, prejudice, and backwardness, rather than essential pillars of our moral lives. The failure of the social-democratic vision is, in this sense, fundamentally a failure of moral wisdom.
No such failure of moral wisdom here. Read, enjoy, and share with your (thoughtful) friends.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: A Conservative Welfare State Revisited
The welfare state that touches me is Social Security and Medicare. I beg to differ with Levin's first sentence in the admin paragraph:
"In our everyday experience, the bureaucratic state presents itself not as a benevolent provider and protector but as a corpulent behemoth — flabby, slow, and expressionless, unmoved by our concerns, demanding compliance with arcane and seemingly meaningless rules as it breathes musty air in our faces and sends us to the back of the line."
With respect to SS and Medicare, the quote is mostly wrong. Yeah, yeah, I'm sure everyone can recount a horror story, but for ordinary citizens those two bureaucracies simply work.
Jan '11
Re: A Conservative Welfare State Revisited
A brilliant manifesto for the future. May it be widely read and considered. Thank you.
May '10
Re: A Conservative Welfare State Revisited
Wow, I came on here to post about how fantastic that second quote it.....I mean really fantastic, and then I read Patrick from Albuquerque's comment. How unserious to take on such a fantastic big picture comment with "well it works for me!" How sad that so many who benefit from these massive, bloated mechanism's of waste defend it so easily. Isn't that the whole point, to get the majority benefiting from the system so it can never be challenged? Exactly the entire reason why taking on entitlement reform is such a challenge.
Thank you Troy, for posting this. A joy to read "They were wrong about this for the same reason that their expectations of the administrative state have proven misguided — because their understanding of the human person was far too shallow and emaciated. They assumed that moral problems were functions of material problems, so that addressing the latter would resolve the former, when the opposite is more often the case."
May '10
Re: A Conservative Welfare State Revisited
Brian, with respect, Patrick's comment was insightful and true: In his everyday experience SS and Medicare work well and are appreciated. A failure to grasp that this is the case for millions of Americans would be a disaster for Republicans, and therefore Patick's pointing this out is not selfish, but wise and helpful.
Using one's satisfaction with the system to argue against any and all reform, however, would be selfish, but I see no evidence that Patrick was doing so.
Oct '10
Re: A Conservative Welfare State Revisited
Patrick: "With respect to SS and Medicare, the quote is mostly wrong. Yeah, yeah, I'm sure everyone can recount a horror story, but for ordinary citizens those two bureaucracies simply work."
Whether they will continue to work with current budget problems compounding is another matter, but it's good to know that not all bureaucracies are equelly inept. However, my experiences (to name just three that leap to mind) with the IRS, the passport office in Miami, and any number of DMV facilities have been almost uniformly maddening and often mystifyingly complex. There might be a couple of exceptions to the rule, but they are just that.
May '10
Re: A Conservative Welfare State Revisited
Scott, my point was that way too many people enjoy the fact that these systems "simply work", and they are not simple...but the complexity has often been removed from the recipient and placed elsewhere....at an additional cost.
May '10
Re: A Conservative Welfare State Revisited
True. In fact, I've heard one of my senior family members complain about the compexity of Medicare Part D because he had to go through the hassle of choosing his plan. It annoys me--angers me even--since it's that very choosing (and the competition it promotes) that has allowed Part D to come in 40% under budget, and it's a model which eventually will have to be followed for Medicare as a whole.
Unfortunately, current seniors will fight to protect the simplicity they've grown accustomed to. Paul Ryan understands this, I think, which is why his proposed reforms change very little for anyone 55 or older.
Political realities are a drag.