Response to Bryan - Long and Meandering

Some follow-up to a recent post. This one spirals all over the place, but touches on some of the essentials of political philosophy, from my layman's perspective.

Hopefully doing the writer justice - in a comment on a previous post Bryan suggests that I often rail against "mamma government", and points out that the government is comprised of the people - it is indeed our government - and that responsible and intelligent collective action in the name of government is no more or less idealistic than capitalism - which doesn't always provide the capacity for all people to "stand on two feet".

Indeed I do rail against "mamma government" - and some of this is thoughtless and too simplistic. The "Reagan revolution", which has influenced 30 years of conservatism, was much better at being critical of federal largesse than it was articulating what government can and should do on behalf of the citizenry. I do think FDR's big ideas have been railroaded towards cradle-to-crave socialism as entitlements are endlessly expanded around the idea of making all outcomes fair.

But, that said, there are some things government can and should do - from interstate highways to devices that detect radiation signatures in the bridges and tunnels around New York City. We need "mamma government" in many instances, and conservatives have done a lousy job of explaining what's fairly done on behalf of the collective good, and what is excessive.

You suggest that this is "our government", one comprised of the American people - the essential compact of civil society is built. Who could argue? Except ... even that simple formulation chafes against some expansionist and over-elastic concepts political theory, which seeks, on one side, to assign rights and social amenities to people who aren't actually citizens (those who recently wandered across our border, folks captured while plotting to kill us) - and on the other side, to make increasing use of international law, international courts and organizations like the United Nations.

Europe, of course, is the best example of this type thinking, having recently unionized into one smeary mass of formerly-sparring countries. The more traditional, or shall we say, longer-standing, ethnic groups of the region - Germans, French - have even seen fit to curb their birth rate precipitously to make way for the new arrivals! (I have reservations about the long-term strategy there, but that's another post.)

The question at the heart of the dispute between free-market capitalism and collectivist government - regardless of the entities between which it exists - is whether we seek equality of outcome or equality of opportunity. Do we seek to evaluate the worth of our society on the basis of the external, measurable indicators of prosperity, or by the harder-to-measure opportunities for personal and material self-realization which are inherent to the system itself, or at least should be?

Let's not forget that life is essentially unfair, from the moment our cells divide through the day we burst into the light and discover any putative parents that may be waiting for us - and (sooner or later) the tax bracket to which they belong. Conservatives argue that these deterministic factors are even less relevant than the traditional, nurturing and highly-involved structures of family - and that the greatest achievers in commerce, arts and letters often had the deck stacked, coming from poverty, with plenty of obstacles and little help ... except, in most cases, for a solid family.

The other way to go is to have collectivist government attempt to balance the scales for everyone. And thus we can plot the long arc of liberal munificence: Welfare, head start, lavishly funded public education, after school programs, generous and endlessly-patient college assistance, job training, free public wif-fi, unemployment, health care, social security, prescription drugs. There's plenty more of course - the list never gets shorter. Ever. And I suspect a few new programs were added as recently as the Democratic debate earlier this week.

Although let's not forget that most of these are supported - even granted, in some instances - by Republicans, so entrenched we've all become in our conception of what government should do to help people. But the question here is - are they fair? Or more fair than free markets and less government, which doesn't guarantee any outcomes, and seems more at ease with a society that has been stratified by various measures?

Many conservatives will answer that the culture of entitlement fails to deliver, and creates an sour underclass of dependence, one which often eschews work and education in favor of benefits that are easily obtained. This view seems overly simple and selective with the facts - the social safety net has saved many from destitution in times of difficulty. And others - well, what do we make of the fact that the poverty rate in America - wealthiest of nations - is still around 12%?

This implies that either social programs fail, or we don't have a broad enough safety net. Or (my view) that while there is indeed real suffering and misfortune in America - and we should never be at ease with that fact - we've also defined poverty so inclusively that it's possible to be technically poor, according to the collective government standard, in America while owning a TV set, and air conditioner, and an automobile - material goods that would place you among the highest classes in many nations.

In other words, the collectivist impulse leads to a view of the world where too much is never enough. And worse, there's a dehumanizing effect on people who are strong, independent, and ambitious - seen most pointedly in schools, the nursery of progressive theory. Recognizing diversity - itself a laudable goal in a poly-cultural society like America - has really become rewarding mediocrity. This trend once seemed implausible, the type of isolated incident a Rush Limbaugh seizes upon for the purposes of tirade - until I saw it firsthand recently at a second grade track meet here in Red State county of Ohio. Every competitor gets a ribbon, regardless of where they placed - and there's not much fuss over who placed the highest - the color for which was lavender. Numerous other examples about - instances where achievement and effort have been blunted in the name of fairness.

This is what disturbs me, and leads me to suspect that we have gone too far in the direction of relying on the collective, instead of the individual. And it leads me to think that - while benefits like social security may not be debatable anymore - when it comes to things like disaster preparedness or our societal readiness for the next pandemic - we are doing ourselves a grave dis-service when we flap our arms about "more being done". We've got to do it ourselves. On this issue and in general we simply need more capable, compassionate and intelligent adults in this society, plugged into the structure of families, ready to look after the public good regardless of whether they are obligated by the government. As hard as it may be, people are more resilient by resisting the "mamma"-driven impulse to reflexively sue for assistance during any crisis. And instead of defining fairness exclusively in material terms, and resentfully attempting to cull away our assertive, independent and competitive qualities - we should encourage self-reliance and old fashioned virtue. And, whether we like it or not - even though it puts us in line with some traditionalists scolds - it's time to recognize that families make a gigantic, unavoidable difference. So we need to encourage them, in every possible way.

Nobody in their right mind would claim that free-market capitalism is perfect, or should exist entirely unconstrained by government regulation. But I am suggesting that the alternative - a creeping notion of socialism - has simply gone too far, is silently corrosive, and finally endangers even liberal, humanist values.

Update: Edited for clarity - probably a lost cause.