The Republican nightmare for America: "Beyond the Welfare State"

[BzaDem]

Much of the conversation on DU seems to be centered around progressive policy, and whether our President is sufficiently achieving such policy or not. This type of conversation seems to divide the world into two possible futures -- one in which we continue along on the status quo, and one in which we change our institutions to serve our people in a much more progressive way. Some say that Obama and the current Democratic party is part of the problem -- that we are a "status quo" party, because we haven't moved to X or Y. This is where much of the anti-Democratic rhetoric here comes from.

What this dynamic misses is an accurate description of where Republicans actually would like to take the country (and where they will take the country next time they are in unified government). I am not talking about what a few people at the fringe of the Republican party want (to whatever extent the party is divided). I am talking about the mainstream Republican view -- the viewpoint that will govern the country should Republicans take back unified government.

This viewpoint starts by dismantling Medicare, but it actually goes well beyond that. They disdain the entire idea of social democracy and regulated capitalism. To them, the pre-Medicare status quo was FAR too liberal to be an ideal for them to strive for.

The following is an excerpt from an article in a conservative publication. While I usually don't like posting such garbage, I think it is important given the confusion that apparently exists about the supposed similarities between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The point of this post is to give people an accurate sense of what the opposition actually favors, and on what plane they see the current political argument. I will not spend much time refuting their argument, because in my opinion it so ridiculous as to be self-refuting. (They are particularly egregiously wrong about Europe -- most of Europe's social democracies are doing just fine in the short term and the long germ.)

But the intellectual bankruptcy of their arguments unfortunately do not mean their arguments will never become law. To prevent that, it takes the election of Democrats at the voting booth.

If, after reading this article, anyone believes that the Democratic party and Republican party are "two sides of the same coin," I would love to hear fact-based justifications for such a position.

--snip--

All over the developed world, nations are coming to terms with the fact that the social-democratic welfare state is turning out to be untenable. The reason is partly institutional: The administrative state is dismally inefficient and unresponsive, and therefore ill-suited to our age of endless choice and variety. The reason is also partly cultural and moral: The attempt to rescue the citizen from the burdens of responsibility has undermined the family, self-reliance, and self-government. But, in practice, it is above all fiscal: The welfare state has turned out to be unaffordable, dependent as it is upon dubious economics and the demographic model of a bygone era. Sustaining existing programs of social insurance, let alone continuing to build new ones on the social-democratic model, has become increasingly difficult in recent years, and projections for the coming decades paint an impossibly grim and baleful picture. There is simply no way that Europe, Japan, or America can actually go where the economists' long-term charts now point — to debts that utterly overwhelm their productive capacities, governments that do almost nothing but support the elderly, and economies with no room for dynamism, for growth, or for youth. Some change must come, and so it will.

But fully grasping this reality will not be easy. Our attachment to the social-democratic vision means that we tend to equate its exhaustion with our own exhaustion, and so to fall into a most un-American melancholy. On the left, fear of decline is now answered only with false hope that the dream may yet be saved through clever tinkering at the edges. On the right, the coming collapse of the liberal welfare state brings calls for austerity — for less of the same — which only highlight the degree to which conservatives, too, are stuck in the social-democratic mindset.

The fact is that we do not face a choice between the liberal welfare state on one hand and austerity on the other. Those are two sides of the same coin: Austerity and decline are what will come if we do not reform the welfare state. The choice we face is between that combination and a different approach to balancing our society's deepest aspirations. America still has a little time to find such an alternative. Our moment of reckoning is coming, but it is not yet here. We have perhaps a decade in which to avert it and to foster again the preconditions for growth and opportunity without forcing a great disruption in the lives of millions, if we start now.

But we do not yet know quite how. The answer will not come from the left, which is far too committed to the old vision to accept its fate and contemplate alternatives. It must therefore emerge from the right. Conservatives must produce not only arguments against the liberal welfare state but also a different vision, a different answer to the question of how we might balance our aspirations. It must be a vision that emphasizes the pursuit of economic growth, republican virtues, and social mobility over economic security, value-neutral welfare, and material equality; that redefines the safety net as a means of making the poor more independent rather than making the middle class less so; and that translates these ideals into institutional forms that suit our modern, dynamic society.

That different vision is now beginning to take shape. Slowly, bit by bit, we are starting to see what must replace our welfare state.

--snip--

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/beyond-the-welfare-state

[Adsos Letter]

1. "...value-neutral welfare..."

This is where I believe the Faith Based programs will play their largest role (as things evolve) as the Right destroys the concept of value-neutral welfare.

[MedleyMisty]

2. The Democrats are the lesser evil, yes

But I don't see them fighting back against the greater evil enough to stop it. They're owned by a lot of the same corporations. It's still, in the words of RATM, "there is no other pill to take, so swallow the one that makes you ill".

What this tells me is that the Republicans are a grave threat to our society and the Democrats are not doing enough to stop it, for whatever reason. So therefore we need a revolution.

No, not one with guns, for the people who have never heard of King or Gandhi or Tunisia or Egypt or Syria or whatever and immediately default to "Vote for Democrats or use guns!". I mean a revolution with civil disobedience.

[BzaDem]

3. With Democrats in office, the "greater evil" you speak of won't be enacted.

I mean, you can argue otherwise, but you would be wrong. The welfare state won't be dismantled. It might (in the worst case) be changed, but it will continue to exist in mostly the same form so long as Republicans don't have power.

You can't just say "they aren't doing enough to stop it" if it isn't true. Their mere presence in positions of power is enough to stop the proposals in the article I cited.

[applegrove]

4. Fact is the West will be less wealthy in the decades to come. America used to

sell products to the world and didn't have to compete with anybody except for asia in the latter half of the 20th century. Europe used to have colonies. You can't do those things anymore. That world is gone. The question now should be how do you translate labour laws and things like universal health care to countries around the world. Because the corporate model and banking model certainly have been shared.