The Voluntarism Fantasy
Conservatives dream of returning to a world where private charity fulfilled all public needs. But that world never existedand were better for it.
Mike Konczal
Ideology is as much about understanding the past as shaping the future. And conservatives tell themselves a story, a fairy tale really, about the past, about the way the world was and can be again under Republican policies. This story is about the way people were able to insure themselves against the risks inherent in modern life. Back before the Great Society, before the New Deal, and even before the Progressive Era, things were better. Before government took on the role of providing social insurance, individuals and private charity did everything needed to insure people against the hardships of life; given the chance, they could do it again.
This vision has always been implicit in the conservative ascendancy. It existed in the 1980s, when President Reagan announced, The size of the federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern, and called for voluntarism to fill in the yawning gaps in the social safety net. It was made explicit in the 1990s, notably through Marvin Olaskys The Tragedy of American Compassion, a treatise hailed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and William Bennett, which argued that a purely private nineteenth-century system of charitable and voluntary organizations did a better job providing for the common good than the twentieth-century welfare state. This idea is also the basis of Paul Ryans budget, which seeks to devolve and shrink the federal government at a rapid pace, lest the safety net turn into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives. Its what Utah Senator Mike Lee references when he says that the alternative to big government is not small government but instead a voluntary civil society. As conservatives face the possibility of a permanent Democratic majority fueled by changing demographics, they understand that time is running out on their cherished project to dismantle the federal welfare state.
But this conservative vision of social insurance is wrong. Its incorrect as a matter of history; it ignores the complex interaction between public and private social insurance that has always existed in the United States. It completely misses why the old system collapsed and why a new one was put in its place. It fails to understand how the Great Recession displayed the welfare state at its most necessary and that a voluntary system would have failed under the same circumstances. Most importantly, it points us in the wrong direction. The last 30 years have seen effort after effort to try and push the policy agenda away from the states capabilities and toward private mechanisms for mitigating the risks we face in the world. This effort is exhausted, and future endeavors will require a greater, not lesser, role for the public.
more
http://www.democracyjournal.org/32/the-voluntarism-fantasy.php?page=all
Cleita
(75,480 posts)All religions have called for giving alms to the poor, including Jesus Christ. If this had been an effective method of dealing with those in need, we would have no poor and suffering today. Everyone would be looked after and taken care of. So voluntary charity isn't the answer. It helps but it doesn't fix the basic problem.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
dhill926
(16,346 posts)great article .