The far right offers up its anti-poverty program
We Americans are notorious for our short attention spans and memories. So perhaps it's understandable, if not excusable, that many people delude themselves into believing that the "good ol' days" were somehow always superior to the modern era. Progressives, for instance, need to be careful at times not to get too carried away in deriding modern technology and consumerism lest we forget that the world of bumpy two-lane roads, non-wrinkle free clothes and two or three dreary TV stations wasn't always as much fun as some like to think.
But, of course, it's the far right for whom rose tinted glasses are the essential accessory when it comes to analyzing American and North Carolina history. One of Raleigh's right-wing think tanks, for example, has dedicated the work of more than one of its projects to celebrating the legacies of what one might describe as "old men in wigs." Whether it's conducting historical reenactments, debating the desertion rate of North Carolina confederate soldiers or attempting to draw philosophical lines of connection between obscure politicians of the past and reactionary ones of modern times, there seems to be something about the distant, antebellum past that stirs the conservative breast.
Such attitudes toward the past are readily apparent in the policy analyses and prescriptions that these groups put forth for today. An excellent example of this phenomenon was on display in the Fayetteville Observer this past week when a columnist from another Raleigh-based group attacked Governor Easley's call for expanded children's health care and other programs that help protect basic human rights of those in need.
"First, Easley says the role of government is to protect basic rights. Just what are those rights? At the time of the American founding, they were ‘life, liberty and property.' Now, apparently, those ‘basic' rights extend to government-provided medical care for middle-class children (N.C. Kids' Care), free preschool (More at Four) and bailouts for people who made poor real estate investments."
According to the writer, publicly funded support for the poor has created, in essence, a class of shiftless beggars.
"Second, Easley claims that the 2-plus million North Carolinians benefiting from his welfare programs do so because they ‘cannot stand up for themselves.' Now, is it that they cannot stand up for themselves? Or is it that the Department of Health and Human Services has actually helped to create a dependent underclass, which means people receive incentives not to stand on their own at all, but to stand in line at the DSS with an outstretched hand?"
So what is the answer to poverty? (The writer does, apparently, admit its existence.) Why, private charity of course – the kind we had before all those socialists foisted the New Deal upon an unsuspecting country.
"We are at a stage in human development when we've tried varying degrees of socialism – systems that have been discredited at each degree. So why can't we get government out of the poverty business? Why can't we turn our concern for others to a vibrant philanthropic sector that would be as powerful and prolific as any other industry if we simply took that virtual monopoly away from the state?
What I'm suggesting is not altogether new. Before the New Deal put mutual aid societies and ‘friendly societies' out of business, America was dotted with community support systems Alexis d'Tocqueville (sic) marveled at upon his arrival. Churches, lodges and neighborhoods looked after each other in a time before mega-corporations. In an age of unprecedented wealth, we could see the emergence of a social entrepreneurship sector unlike any ever conceived. That sense of responsibility for our fellow man would return, except we'd have the benefit of 21st century prosperity and know-how."
Reality Check
On American history – At the risk of repeating a lesson that the writer should have absorbed in high school (or perhaps at a Locke Foundation historical reenactment), here are a few basic reminders about pre-New Deal America.
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville did, in fact, marvel at many of the things he encountered in the United States – including some of the small institutions (churches, lodges, etc…) that helped promote social well-being. But, of course, de Tocqueville visited the country during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, a full century prior to the New Deal – prior even to the Industrial Revolution and the Civil War.
Yes, the country was "dotted" with private community support systems in the 1830's. It was "dotted" with them in the 1930's and it is "dotted" with them in 2008 (notwithstanding the author's claim that they've all been put "out of business"). That's the problem: it was and is dotted and not covered.
Indeed, it was as a result of this "dotting" that in 1932 (and at other times of economic depression) millions of honest, hardworking Americans – men, women, children, seniors – were hungry and homeless and hopeless. It's all well and good to talk about citizens generously caring for each other without the "coercive" involvement of government, but what if the citizens and their "friendly societies" don't have anything to share? More to the point, what if there just aren't enough friendly societies to begin with? What then?
Sure, what de Tocqueville saw during his American visits beat the heck out of early 19th Century France. "Dotting" is better than nothing. But does that mean that's the best to which Americans should have aspired in 1933? In 2008?
On the New Deal - Contrary to the author's slander, the New Deal was one of the greatest accomplishments in modern human history – a peaceful, democratic revolution in which the citizens of a free society intentionally renegotiated and upgraded the social contract. Indeed, it was a heroic period in which Americans discovered that they could, through their knack for improvisation and innovation, make capitalism work for society's benefit rather than the other way around.
Most of all, it was a time in which Americans came to understand the power for good that could be mustered through large scale, intentional, democratic action. Not only could the country directly combat and reduce poverty for those at the bottom, it could construct a social safety net that would alleviate much of the fear and uncertainty that plagued the vast majority of citizens. Though far from perfect in those early days (or today), that safety net and the freedom from fear it provided remains a seminal achievement for humankind. And the promotion of FDR's "Four Essential Human Freedoms" (Freedom of speech and expression; Freedom of worship; Freedom from want; and Freedom from fear) remains a guiding star for the country and an important addendum to its charter.
On today's reality - As for the present and the author's offensive assertion that working North Carolinians whose kids receive subsidized health insurance (or presumably, seniors for whom Medicaid covers their nursing home costs) constitute a "dependent underclass" standing in lines with "outstretched hands," well, it's simply hard to believe that a modern newspaper would give space to such utter and uninformed drivel – the graffiti wall at some insular college fraternity perhaps, but not a responsible media outlet.
Just exactly how does the author define "dependent" or "underclass"? Is a single parent working two part-time jobs and receiving publicly subsidized childcare "dependent"? Is a senior who avoids poverty through the receipt of a monthly Social Security check part of the underclass? How about a college student who receives need-based scholarship to attend a public university? A child? A veteran?
Is the author even remotely conversant with the virtual abolition of traditional cash assistance (i.e. "welfare") in the 1990's? As was noted in this space just a couple of weeks ago in a similar tutorial, only around 10,000 adults and 45,000 children still receive "welfare" in North Carolina. The benefit is $272 per month for a family of three and costs the state around 0.6% of the state budget.
The bottom line
Try as they might to rehabilitate and ennoble the era of the Old Deal with high flown references to European philosophers and myths about private solutions to poverty, the modern far right's affinity for centuries gone by is clearly born of a longing for a time in this country in which: 1) everyone knew their place and the economic have nots stayed politely out of sight, and 2) men with whom they identify ran the show. Future American progress will be contingent upon our continued and ongoing rejection of the return of either circumstance.
