Washington--The President estimated that the expenditures of the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the fiscal year 1961
(including Social Security payments) would exceed $15,000,000,000.
Thus the current results of New Deal legislation are Federal
disbursements for human welfare in this country second only to
national defense.
The _New York Times_, January 18, 1960, p. 1.
For many years it appeared that the principal domestic threat
to our freedom was contained in the doctrines of Karl Marx. The
collectivists--non-Communists as well as Communists--had adopted the
Marxist objective of “socializing the means of production.” And so it
seemed that if collectivization were imposed, it would take the form of
a State owned and operated economy. I doubt whether this is the main
threat any longer.
The collectivists have found, both in this country and in other
industrialized nations of the West, that free enterprise has removed
the economic and social conditions that might have made a class
struggle possible. Mammoth productivity, wide distribution of wealth,
high standards of living, the trade union movement--these and other
factors have eliminated whatever incentive there might have been for
the “proletariat” to rise up, peaceably or otherwise, and assume direct
ownership of productive property. Significantly, the bankruptcy of
doctrinaire Marxism has been expressly acknowledged by the Socialist
Party of West Germany, and by the dominant faction of the Socialist
Party of Great Britain. In this country the abandonment of the Marxist
approach (outside the Communist Party, of course) is attested to by the
negligible strength of the Socialist Party, and more tellingly perhaps,
by the content of left wing literature and by the programs of left wing
political organizations such as the Americans For Democratic Action.
The currently favored instrument of collectivization is the Welfare
State. The collectivists have not abandoned their ultimate goal--to
subordinate the individual to the State--but their strategy has
changed. They have learned that Socialism can be achieved through
Welfarism quite as well as through Nationalization. They understand
that private property can be confiscated as effectively by taxation as
by expropriating it. They understand that the individual can be put at
the mercy of the State--not only by making the State his employer--but
by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and
by giving the State the responsibility of caring for those needs
from cradle to grave. Moreover, they have discovered--and here is
the critical point--that _Welfarism is much more compatible with the
political processes of a democratic society_. Nationalization ran into
popular opposition, but the collectivists feel sure the Welfare State
can be erected by the simple expedient of buying votes with promises
of “free” federal benefits--“free” housing, “free” school aid, “free”
hospitalization, “free” retirement pay and so on.... The correctness
of this estimate can be seen from the portion of the federal budget
that is now allocated to welfare, an amount second only to the cost of
national defense.[3]
I do not welcome this shift of strategy. Socialism-through-Welfarism
poses a far greater danger to freedom than
Socialism-through-Nationalization precisely because it is more
difficult to combat. The evils of Nationalization are self-evident and
immediate. Those of Welfarism are veiled and tend to be postponed.
People can understand the consequences of turning over ownership of the
steel industry, say, to the State; and they can be counted on to oppose
such a proposal. But let the government increase its contribution to
the “Public Assistance” program and we will, at most, grumble about
excessive government spending. The effect of Welfarism on freedom will
be felt later on--after its beneficiaries have become its victims,
after dependence on government has turned into bondage and it is too
late to unlock the jail.
But a far more important factor is Welfarism’s strong emotional appeal
to many voters, and the consequent temptations it presents the average
politician. It is hard, as we have seen, to make out a case for State
ownership. It is very different with the rhetoric of humanitarianism.
How easy it is to reach the voters with earnest importunities for
helping the needy. And how difficult for Conservatives to resist these
demands without appearing to be callous and contemptuous of the plight
of less fortunate citizens. Here, perhaps, is the best illustration of
the failure of the Conservative demonstration.
I know, for I have heard the questions often. Have you no sense of
social obligation? the Liberals ask. Have you no concern for people who
are out of work? for sick people who lack medical care? for children in
overcrowded schools? Are you unmoved by the problems of the aged and
disabled? Are you _against_ human welfare?
The answer to all of these questions is, of course, no. But a simple
“no” is not enough. I feel certain that Conservatism is through unless
Conservatives can demonstrate and communicate the difference between
being concerned with these problems and believing that the federal
government is the proper agent for their solution.
The long range political consequences of Welfarism are plain enough:
as we have seen, the State that is able to deal with its citizens as
wards and dependents has gathered unto itself unlimited political and
economic power and is thus able to rule as absolutely as any oriental
despot.
Let us, however, weigh the consequences of Welfarism on the individual
citizen.
Consider, first, the effect of Welfarism on the donors of government
welfare--not only those who pay for it but also the voters and
their elected representatives who decide that the benefits shall be
conferred. Does some credit redound on them for trying to care for the
needs of their fellow citizens? Are they to be commended and rewarded,
at some moment in eternity, for their “charity?” I think not. Suppose I
should vote for a measure providing for free medical care: I am unaware
of any moral virtue that is attached to my decision to confiscate the
earnings of X and give them to Y.
Suppose, however, that X approves of the program--that he has voted
for welfarist politicians with the idea of helping his fellow man.
Surely the wholesomeness of his act is diluted by the fact that he is
voting not only to have his own money taken but also that of his fellow
citizens who may have different ideas about their social obligations.
Why does not such a man, instead, contribute what he regards as his
just share of human welfare to a private charity?
Consider the consequences to the recipient of welfarism. For one
thing, he mortgages himself to the federal government. In return for
benefits--which, in the majority of cases, he pays for--he concedes to
the government the ultimate in political power--the power to grant or
withhold from him the necessities of life as the government sees fit.
Even more important, however, is the effect on him--the elimination
of any feeling of responsibility for his own welfare and that of his
family and neighbors. A man may not immediately, or ever, comprehend
the harm thus done to his character. Indeed, this is one of the great
evils of Welfarism--that it transforms the individual from a dignified,
industrious, self-reliant _spiritual_ being into a dependent animal
creature without his knowing it. There is no avoiding this damage to
character under the Welfare State. Welfare programs cannot help but
promote the idea that the government _owes_ the benefits it confers
on the individual, and that the individual is entitled, by right, to
receive them. Such programs are sold to the country precisely on the
argument that government has an _obligation_ to care for the needs of
its citizens. Is it possible that the message will reach those who vote
for the benefits, but not those who receive them? How different it is
with private charity where both the giver and the receiver understand
that charity is the product of the humanitarian impulses of the giver,
not the due of the receiver.
Let us, then, not blunt the noble impulses of mankind by reducing
charity to a mechanical operation of the federal government. Let
us, by all means, encourage those who are fortunate and able to care
for the needs of those who are unfortunate and disabled. But let us
do this in a way that is conducive to the spiritual as well as the
material well-being of our citizens--and in a way that will preserve
their freedom. Let welfare be a private concern. Let it be promoted by
individuals and families, by churches, private hospitals, religious
service organizations, community charities and other institutions that
have been established for this purpose. If the objection is raised that
private institutions lack sufficient funds, let us remember that every
penny the federal government does _not_ appropriate for welfare is
potentially available for private use--and without the overhead charge
for processing the money through the federal bureaucracy. Indeed, high
taxes, for which government Welfarism is so largely responsible, is the
biggest obstacle to fund raising by private charities.
Finally, if we deem public intervention necessary, let the job be done
by local and state authorities that are incapable of accumulating the
vast political power that is so inimical to our liberties.
The Welfare State is _not_ inevitable, as its proponents are so
fond of telling us. There is nothing inherent in an industrialized
economy, or in democratic processes of government that _must_ produce
de Tocqueville’s “guardian society.” Our future, like our past, will
be what we make it. And we can shatter the collectivists’ designs
on individual freedom if we will impress upon the men who conduct
our affairs this one truth: that the material and spiritual sides of
man are intertwined; that it is impossible for the State to assume
responsibility for one without intruding on the essential nature of
the other; that if we take from a man the personal responsibility for
caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the
opportunity to be free.