PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
"1. The modern European welfare state goes back to the late nineteenth century when Otto von Bismarck, Imperial Germanys ruthless Iron Chancellor, introduced state social insurance in an undisguised attempt to placate the growing German industrial working class and the ever-increasing number of Social Democrats they elected to the German legislature. Far too many Europeans now simply assume a munificent welfare state as part of the economic landscape. Indeed the increasing number of older West Europeans today has no incentive to change. Their attitude might be described as Après moi, le déluge.
2. a disinclination of many European politicianson the left and rightto concede that the post-war European effort to use the state to provide as much economic security as possible has encountered an immovable obstacle in the form of economic reality. Yet it is arguablealbeit highly politically incorrect to suggestthat it also reflects the workings of a potentially deadly nexus between democracy (or a certain culture of democracy) and the welfare state.
3. One justification for democracy is that it provides us with ways of aligning government policies with the citizenrys requirements and of holding governments accountable when their decisions do not accord with the majoritys wishes. But what happens when some citizens begin viewing these mechanisms as a means for encouraging elected officials to use the state to provide them with whatever they want, such as apparently limitless economic security? what happens when many elected officials believe it is their responsibility to provide the demanded security, or, more cynically, regard welfare programs as a useful tool to create constituencies that can be relied upon to vote for them?
4. Does this mean that shrinking the welfare state requires a diminishment of democracy? The answer is no .a proper response is to recognize that a democracys ability to resist the long slouch towards the soft despotism of the welfare state requires two things.
a. shift the incentives for economic mobility and security so that they lie in the private sector rather than in becoming a recipient of state largesse.
b. developing a moral and political culture which underscores the undesirability of politicians and citizens using the state to live at others expense.
5. America, however, is a different story as compared to Europe. The sheer intensity of resistance to the Obama Administrations healthcare legislation was about many things. But it surely reflected the fact that millions of Americans are simply unwilling to go the way of Western Europe. Successful long-term resistance, however, is going to depend upon Americans understanding that the link between democracy and the welfare state has to be broken, and that the only way to achieve this objective over the long term is through recommitting the United States to some of the very best aspirations of its Foundinga love of liberty, an embrace of the virtues needed to sustain freedom, and an unwillingness to delegate to the state the responsibilities that free men and women owe each other."
MercatorNet: Fatal attraction: democracy and the welfare state
2. a disinclination of many European politicianson the left and rightto concede that the post-war European effort to use the state to provide as much economic security as possible has encountered an immovable obstacle in the form of economic reality. Yet it is arguablealbeit highly politically incorrect to suggestthat it also reflects the workings of a potentially deadly nexus between democracy (or a certain culture of democracy) and the welfare state.
3. One justification for democracy is that it provides us with ways of aligning government policies with the citizenrys requirements and of holding governments accountable when their decisions do not accord with the majoritys wishes. But what happens when some citizens begin viewing these mechanisms as a means for encouraging elected officials to use the state to provide them with whatever they want, such as apparently limitless economic security? what happens when many elected officials believe it is their responsibility to provide the demanded security, or, more cynically, regard welfare programs as a useful tool to create constituencies that can be relied upon to vote for them?
4. Does this mean that shrinking the welfare state requires a diminishment of democracy? The answer is no .a proper response is to recognize that a democracys ability to resist the long slouch towards the soft despotism of the welfare state requires two things.
a. shift the incentives for economic mobility and security so that they lie in the private sector rather than in becoming a recipient of state largesse.
b. developing a moral and political culture which underscores the undesirability of politicians and citizens using the state to live at others expense.
5. America, however, is a different story as compared to Europe. The sheer intensity of resistance to the Obama Administrations healthcare legislation was about many things. But it surely reflected the fact that millions of Americans are simply unwilling to go the way of Western Europe. Successful long-term resistance, however, is going to depend upon Americans understanding that the link between democracy and the welfare state has to be broken, and that the only way to achieve this objective over the long term is through recommitting the United States to some of the very best aspirations of its Foundinga love of liberty, an embrace of the virtues needed to sustain freedom, and an unwillingness to delegate to the state the responsibilities that free men and women owe each other."
MercatorNet: Fatal attraction: democracy and the welfare state