MAIN IDEAS OF GENERAL-WELFARE LIBERALISM

General-welfare liberalism steers a middle ground between unbridled classical liberalism (laissez faire) and the more extreme ideologies, such as socialism, that had become popular in Europe. An amalgam of individual rights and active government, it consists, as described in the beginning of the chapter, of two main parts.

The general-welfare component assigns government three important social and economic functions to smooth the rough edges of capitalism. First, it calls for government to manage the overall economy in order to minimize unemployment and inflation and encourage growth, an activity called macroeconomic policy. Second, government is asked to provide needy individuals with basic goods and services. Proponents of general-welfare liberalism interpret poverty not as a personal weakness but as resulting in large measure from the failure of economic institutions, and public institutions have a duty to compensate the victims of this malfunctioning. Politicians debate furiously about who deserves help and how much is required, but they usually agree on the general principle of government assistance. Government's third function is to enact measures to protect the public from the perils of industrial life--unemployment, environmental pollution, dangerous products, consumer fraud, catastrophic illnesses, hazards in the workplace, and natural disasters--with which they as individuals acting alone cannot reasonably be expected to cope. This aid is not a matter of assisting the destitute; even well-off citizens are entitled to these protections.

The philosophy's second major component, liberalism, reaffirms classical liberalism's central values. We continue to live in a "private" society in which individualism, political liberties, personal property, limited government, and capitalism hold sway. The government has indeed swelled in size and purpose, but in most key respects the ideas voiced by the Republic's founders influence how the political apparatus carries out its responsibilities.

Consider what general-welfare liberalism does and does not encourage:

• Private property remains firmly protected. Although its use is restricted, the emphasis is on public regulation, not ownership. Owners are free to reap the profits of their blouse factories so long as they provide for the health and safety of their employees.

• We continue to adhere firmly to the notions of political equality and equality of opportunity. Virtually no significant party or group advocates equal wealth or common ownership of possessions.

• Differences in income, assets, and talents may be envied or resented but are always tolerated. What we demand (in theory, at any rate) is equality before the law; one person, one vote; an equal chance to succeed; and so forth.
• In this connection the unequal distribution of wealth goes unchallenged. Indeed, one of the most important facts about general-welfare liberalism's conception of government is that its programs are not paid for by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The distribution of wealth today is about what it was 80 years ago. America, in short, pays for its public services with taxes on the population as a whole, from economic growth, and by distributing resources within rather than between social classes.

• As stressed repeatedly, the ideas (though not necessarily the practice) of individualism and distrust of government dominate our public philosophy. Comic strips, films, advertisements, well-known quotes, and even standup commedians illustrate our propensity to believe the worst about politicians and bureaucracy The on-going debate about mandatory seat belt use shows that we still feel that no one has the right to tell us how to live our lives, even if the advice is sound. Although Dan Staples regularly wears a seat belt, he voted to repeal a Nebraska law requiring drivers and front-seat passengers to buckle up: "I don't want some one telling me whether I should wear a seat belt or not....To me, it's a matter of personal choice."( New York Times, December 1, 1986, p. 14.) Delawareans have vociforously opposed mandatory seat belt and motorcycle helment laws.

Go to power elite page

• As mammoth as the central government has become, it is still viewed as a partner with, not a substitute for, the free enterprise system. Farming, for instance, remains tightly in the hands of family and corporate farms, but depends heavily on the Department of Agriculture for crop subsidies, irrigation and flood control, scientific research, weather forecasts, and county extension agents.

• Although Americans have come, reluctantly perhaps, to recognize the need for collective action, they still cling to their biases against centralized power. They attempt wherever possible to keep public programs close to home and operate them through private institutions and channels.

• The well-known heritage of distrust of monarchs and tyrannical majorities continues to define perceptions of the polity's proper form. And a major contradiction inevitably arises. In seeking to put flesh on the goal of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," general-welfare liberalism assigns the political system many obligations that demand coherent and consistent action. But how is such action possible in a constitutional arrangement that divides and separates power, creates multiple layers of authority, each with a check over the other, and emphasizes gradual changes rather than rapid action? Ironically, as the size and scope of the federal and state establishments have mushroomed, they have nevertheless stayed as fragmented as the founders intended.

• The marketplace remains the backbone of the economy. Even though business and labor periodically suggest a closer collaboration with the state to meet the challenges of foreign competition, and even though, as we noted, nearly every economic sector receives some kind of government assistance, there is virtually no national economic planning in this country. Public policy, as a consequence, frequently works at cross-purposes.

• Individual initiative and responsibility are still key social values. Contrary to popular impression, general-welfare liberalism does not advocate ministering to every citizen from cradle to grave. The rich and poor are expected to succeed on their own. The public philosophy distinguishes between success, which is a personal achievement, and suffering, which may be a public concern, especially if it is thought to be caused by factors like a major depression. No one, in other words, should be denied a reasonable chance for a decent life, but taking advantage of the opportunities is left up to the individual.

Go to Reserve Room

Return to General-Welfare Liberalism in Practice Page

Return to General-Welfare Liberalism Main Page

Return to Political Science 105 main page

Return to H. T. Reynolds page