The welfare state, in its present form, is based on the false choice between laissez-faire individualism and social assistance and deliberately obscures the real choice between a free and benevolent association and a compulsory government dependency.
It’s all very well to decide what would be possible for the poor and the middle class in a world after liberalism and the welfare state. Anyone can do that. The question is, would the poor and the middle class want to? Perhaps they would want to continue in the soft totalitarianism of the welfare state as Herbert Marcuse sneeringly predicted in the 1960s. In the early 2010s, low-income Americans were advertising, through their actions, their preference for a life of government benefits in preference to a life of work. Given that a single mother of two in Pennsylvania in 2010 can could get annual benefits worth $46,000 or so, why would she attempt to work?1 Similarly middle-class Americans were demonstrating that they preferred a life checking the boxes of the middle-class entitlements over robust responsibility, from free schooling to subsidized college education to highly taxed employment to government-specified retirement benefits. If they wanted something different they could seek it out. What would it take for welfare recipients to change their minds about work? And what would it take for the middle class to lose their attachment to middle-class entitlements? The answer is pretty simple. The government would have to run out of money. Then people would start looking around for something different. In 2012, for instance, the voters voted for President Obama to keep their benefits. Why not? The Republican nominee did not offer a compelling reason for change, a compelling reason to risk a change in the trajectory of big government. So the voters chose their benefits.
We have seen that there are two different ways in which humans look for something different, when they respond to an existential need to change their conditions of existence. Either they go a-freebooting, as warrior bands have done since time immemorial, following their aggressive instincts. Or they invent a religion, in order to cut down on the freebooting and the freeloading as they have done since time immemorial, following their natural cooperative instincts.
We have spun in Chapter Five the cords that bind a community of social humans: gathering people into a community, establishing rules of behavior, an ability to sacrifice, burying enmities, directing the moral sense with cultural memes. We could bind everyone into community by force, of course, but force is expensive, so humans long ago developed religion as an effective way to socialize each human into the right thinking, the right feeling, and the right acting for the good of the social group by other means. Religion even developed cunning tricks, like the concepts of divine justice and reincarnation, to persuade people that, while evildoers don’t necessarily get their deserts in this world, they will certainly get the attention of God in the next world or get relegated to a lower caste in the next life. And, of course, a religious community also identifies potentially trustworthy people, the kind of people demonstrating in their actions their willingness to pay the cost of belonging to a church community.
In the last two thousand years the fundamental social problem has been the challenge of moving to the city and learning how to operate in an urban society. We saw this as a process of moving from the tribal self of the hunter-gatherer or the servile self of the agricultural peasant to a new kind of membership in the city as one of the People of the Responsible Self.
In their initial responses to the new “ultimate conditions” of existence in the city, humans thought that salvation was obtained by withdrawing from the world, a strategy that Rodney Stark has called “upper-class asceticism.” Perhaps that worked well for princelings like Gautama Siddhartha as it now works for tenured university professors in the modern era. But in the Protestant Reformation the rising bourgeoisie determined that “salvation is not to be found in any kind of withdrawal from the world but in the midst of worldly activities.”2 In the words of revivalist preacher Barton Stone, Protestant revivalism woke people up from “the sleep of ages” to the idea that they could become responsible beings called to a life of purpose.
You can see this narrative at work in George Eliot’s first full-length novel, Adam Bede, published in 1859 but set in 1799. Its protagonists are shining examples of responsible virtue, of what Max Weber would come to call the “Protestant ethic.” Seeking salvation in responsible worldly lives of work and mindfulness are the rising carpenter Adam Bede and the incandescent Methodist lay preacher, Dinah Morris. But protagonists need antagonists, and so Eliot creates the heedless Arthur Donnithorne, the local squire’s son, and the foolish Hetty Sorrel to illuminate the worthiness of Bede and Morris. At every moment in the novel Adam and Dinah are thinking about how to live and act rightly, and how to follow through on their virtuous intentions. Needless to say, the heedless Arthur and Hetty do not heed anything but their shallow and selfish impulses. Because Adam Bede is a novel, divine justice gets to operate in this world, so Adam and Dinah live happily ever after, while Hetty Sorrel is transported beyond the seas for killing the baby she bore out of the seed of heedless Arthur Donnithorne.
At every great moral or social crisis in American history, according to William G. McLoughlin, Americans meet the challenge with a Great Awakening, a spiritual revival that sets the stage – spiritually, politically, and culturally – for a great age of reform. The great revival of the mid 18th century got people riled up for the American Revolution, and the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century prepared the ground for the battle against slavery. As we have seen in Chapter Five, the modern world is a ferment of religious movements trying to conjure up and enact new symbolic forms and acts to relate themselves to the ultimate conditions of their existence. There are movements that appeal to the educated elite and attempt to compensate for the Death of God. There are movements that appeal to the rising middle class, living out Max Weber’s notion of the modern Puritan seeking a life that finds meaning in work as a calling. There are movements that appeal to the urban poor, that encourage a united front to the challenges of life on the margin.
All moral movements work on the eternal battle between good vs. evil. They must do, for every moral movement seeks to find the meaning of life here on Earth, and the meaningful life is necessarily the good life, and life that is not informed by the true meaning of life is necessarily evil. Having satisfied itself to the meaning of life and the definition of the good life a moral movement then divides up the world into “us” and “them.” “We” are the good people working to relate our lives to the ultimate conditions of existence; we can be trusted to act rightly and can be given the benefit of the doubt. Within the community of “us” there is no need for force and compulsion, for trustworthy people can be trusted to do the right thing. But “they” are the evil people that cannot be trusted. Against “them” there is probably a need for armed defense, and “they” are likely only to respond to force and compulsion.
We have seen that this is not just the way of modern humans but of historical and ancient humans. Thus all bands of hunter-gatherers thought of the group of the kindred as “us” and the neighboring group as a dangerous “them.” All villages of agriculturalists thought of the village as “us” and the village over the hill as “them.” It is a striking achievement of the nation state to have extended the notion of “us” to all people that dwell within the sacred borders of the nation state and speak “our” language. People in other lands that speak other languages are not to be trusted.
Now, it is the vision of our modern ruling class of the educated elite that it is called by the ultimate conditions of existence to gather the nations into supranational federations. That is the goal of the leaders of the European Union: “ever closer union.” And beyond that, the modern ruling class would like the whole world to live under one world federation: if not the United Nations, then some other global federation. Theirs is a moral movement to unite all humankind into one “we.” This vision prompts the modern ruling class to imagine a different kind of “us” versus “them.” “We” are the people working for ever closer union; “they” are the people opposed to our vision. Within the nation states the ruling class pursues a slightly different division between “us” and “them,” where “we” are the educated ruling class and its traditionally marginalized clients, the over-under ruling coalition, and “they” are the rich, the corporations, the Christian fundamentalists, the gun owners, and the rednecks.
It is the argument of this book that the moral movement of the modern ruling class has failed, and is heading to red ruin, because of a fatal flaw. This flaw is the failure of the ruling class to lead the clients of the administrative welfare state towards the life of the “responsible self.” Every cohort of humans that migrated to the city has embraced the notion of the “responsible self” in order to thrive in the city and adapt its conditions of life to the conditions of the city, and, up to now, each cohort had to work out the means of adaptation on its own. But the modern ruling class decided in the 19th century to award itself a power of attorney to act on behalf of the lower orders, and since then has rarely encouraged the clients of the welfare state to take up the life of the responsible self; instead it has encouraged in its clients the notion of the “marginalized self,” the victimized self separated by injustice from the enjoyments of its fair share of the wealth of the city.
The ruling class justifies its leadership on the grounds of “inequality,” a revised version of the exploitation argument made by the Educated Youth of the 19th century. It presumes that the poverty, the “inequality” suffered by the poor in the city, is due to injustice, social and political impediments, institutional barriers to the welfare of the poor. Where this “inequality” can be found to obtain, and it usually can, then it follows that the ruling class should act to remove those barriers.
If the marginalized folk in the city were truly barred from the opportunity to thrive in the city then the program of the ruling class would be the right one. It would be necessary to protect the inner-city poor from unscrupulous employers and landlords, from redlining banks and racist rednecks. And it goes without saying that a whole menu of social benefits would be necessary to preserve the poor from indigence. But we have seen in Chapter Twelve that in the Third World the poor manage to thrive without social benefits, and even manage to find the money to get their children into illegal private schools so that they can acquire the basic skills needed to thrive in the city. Even in South Chicago, down the street from President Obama’s liberal enclave of Hyde Park, the urban poor exhibit extraordinary skills in their struggle to thrive. On this argument the disabilities of the poor issue less from social injustice and more from cultural disability, an unwillingness or inability to present oneself to the landlords and employers in a way calculated to inspire trust. Liberal economist Robert William Fogel attempted in The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism to to convert his liberal friends away from the program of material inequality towards an appreciation of the poor suffering from a “maldistribution of spiritual resources”,3 i.e. character.
But how does a person develop the kind of character that will help to make up their deficiencies in “spiritual resources,” and help them present themselves to landlords and employers in the right way, and enable them to thrive in the city? The answer is religion. It was Methodism that taught Adam Bede and Dinah Morris how to live the life of responsible self. It is Pentecostalism that teaches the Latin-American poor to abandon the culture of machismo for responsible work in a calling. It is house churches that teach the deracinated urban women of China how to make sense of their conditions of existence and rebuild community out of the rubble of Maoist communism.
1Gary Alexander, “Welfare’s Failure and the Solution,” slideshow, American Enterprise Institute. Accessed 2/11/2013: http://www.aei.org/files/2012/07/11-alexander-presentation_10063532278.pdf
2Ibid., p. 368.
3Robert William Fogel, The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 235.
Government and the Technology of Power
If you scratch a social reformer, you will likely discover a plan for more government.
Business, Slavery, and Trust
Business is all about trust and relationship.
Humanity's Big Problem: Freebooters and Freeloaders
The modern welfare state encourages freeloaders.
The Bonds of Faith
No society known to anthropology or history lacked religion.
A Critique of Social Mechanics
The problem with human society reduced to system.
The Paradox of Individualism
Is individualism the gospel of selfishness or something else?
From Multitude to Civil Society
The larger the government, the smaller the society.
The Answer is Civil Society
In between the separated powers.
The Greater Separation of Powers
If you want to limit power then you must limit power.
Conservatism Three by Three
Conservatism, political, economics, and cultural.
The Culture of Involvement
Imagining lives without the welfare state
The Poor Without the Welfare State
Can the poor thrive without the welfare state?
The Middle Class Without The Welfare State
How would the middle class live without all those middle-class entitlements?
From Freeloaders to Free Givers
The path to the future lies through moral movements.
The Real Meaning of Society
Broadening the horizon of cooperation in the last best hope of man on earth.
[W]hen I asked a liberal longtime editor I know with a mainstream [publishing] house for a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives, she didn't hesitate. Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists, she offered, smiling but meaning it.
Harry Stein, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican
Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
[To make] of each individual member of the army a soldier who, in character, capability, and knowledge, is self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility [verantwortungsfreudig] as a man and a soldier. — Gen. Hans von Seeckt
MacGregor Knox, Williamson Murray, ed., The dynamics of military revolution, 1300-2050
For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008
Imagining that all order is the result of design, socialists
conclude that order must be improvable by better design of some superior mind.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
[Every] sacrifice is an act of impurity that pays for a prior act of greater impurity... without its participants having to suffer the full consequences incurred by its predecessor. The punishment is commuted in a process that strangely combines and finesses the deep contradiction between justice and mercy.
Frederick Turner, Beauty: The Value of Values
[The Axial Age] highlights the conception of a responsible self... [that] promise[s] man for the first time that he can understand the fundamental structure of reality and through salvation participate actively in it.
Robert N Bellah, "Religious Evolution", American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 3.
But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family.
Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
[T]he way to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,
Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop
discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Roberts, C.J., Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District
A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is merely relative, is asking you not to believe him. So dont.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy
Paul Dirac: When I was talking with Lemaître about [the expanding universe] and feeling stimulated
by the grandeur of the picture that he has given us, I told him that
I thought cosmology was the branch of science that lies closest to religion.
However [Georges] Lemaître [Catholic priest, physicist, and
inventor of the Big Bang Theory] did not agree with me. After thinking it over he
suggested psychology as lying closest to religion.
John Farrell, The Creation Myth
Within Pentecostalism the injurious hierarchies of the wider world are abrogated and replaced by a single hierarchy of faith, grace, and the empowerments of the spirit... where groups gather on rafts to take them through the turbulence of the great journey from extensive rural networks to the mega-city and the nuclear family...
David Martin, On Secularization