Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

There is widespread cognitive dissonance on the right when it comes to social welfare, a social safety net, and the redistribution of wealth generally. Self-described conservatives often articulate their first principles as if they oppose all welfare spending. But they don't actually think food stamps or welfare checks for impoverished families should be eliminated, which helps explain why redistributive social-welfare spending exists in red states as well as blue states, in red counties as well as blue counties, across Republican as well as Democratic majorities.

Conservatives talk tough. They're convinced the system has a lot of waste and fraud. The idea of freeloading hucksters on welfare outrages them to a degree far out of proportion to other government waste, sometimes for discreditable reasons. They're not all talk on welfare cuts, but their bark is worse than their bite...

Most movement conservatives would be loath to eliminate social welfare spending. No elected Republican has tried to do it in memory, and none ever will. Conservatives seldom rally around actual anti-statists. Yet they are loath to admit, even to themselves, that they favor some degree of redistribution of wealth.

What's silly is suffering a portion of that hit for the ability to pretend you'd return to a pre-New Deal America if you could. Lots of conservatives do that.

It's as if they're afraid that if they admit it's legitimate for Uncle Sam to redistribute a portion of their income, they'll have no way to object if he comes for all of it. Ironically, free-market icons like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek were much more comfortable endorsing the legitimacy of a social safety net. And they were no less able to defend the market and private property!

If rank-and-file conservatives actually believed that social-welfare spending ought to be eliminated (or much more far-fetched, that the next Congress ought to implement an Objectivist policy platform), it might make sense to suffer the consequences of holding positions that are very unpopular with the electorate. What's silly is suffering a portion of that hit for the ability to pretend you'd return to a pre-New Deal America if you could. Lots of conservatives do that.

AZGrizFan wrote:Imagine how many truly needy people could have been helped with their healthcare (without blowing up the system) if there wasn't so much waste in the other "safety net" programs.

ASUG8 wrote:I think most people regardless of party affiliation would agree that there should be some safety net for those who are truly in need, be it permanently for some disability or temporarily in the case of unemployment or underemployment. It's a sliding scale on just how much each individual believes that safety net should cover.

The Tea Party and the extreme left have nearly ripped the country apart over the last few years when most people classify themselves somewhere closer to the middle in their politics. You can be conservative without being a batshit crazy Tea Partier just as you can be liberal without hugging the bark off every tree within 100 yards.

IMO, a recession of the depth that we've experienced over the last few years has contributed to a perception of an increased welfare state (maybe not incorrect) which riles the right and emboldens the left. I don't recall feeling this disheartened and apathetic about our government's ability to do the right thing as I have been the last few years, and that falls on both parties in power.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I think most people regardless of party affiliation would agree that there should be some safety net for those who are truly in need, be it permanently for some disability or temporarily in the case of unemployment or underemployment. It's a sliding scale on just how much each individual believes that safety net should cover.

The Tea Party and the extreme left have nearly ripped the country apart over the last few years when most people classify themselves somewhere closer to the middle in their politics. You can be conservative without being a batshit crazy Tea Partier just as you can be liberal without hugging the bark off every tree within 100 yards.

IMO, a recession of the depth that we've experienced over the last few years has contributed to a perception of an increased welfare state (maybe not incorrect) which riles the right and emboldens the left. I don't recall feeling this disheartened and apathetic about our government's ability to do the right thing as I have been the last few years, and that falls on both parties in power.

We need more Libertarians and Blue Dogs in government.

But they are considered "traitors to the cause" by the extremists we have right now.

DSUrocks07 wrote:We need more Libertarians and Blue Dogs in government.

CID1990 wrote:What an annoying article.

"Lots of conservatives do that." blah blah blah

The author is working from under a number of misunderstandings (more like prejudices, actually)- a big one being that conservatives somehow want to go back to the pre-New Deal America, RATHER than simply make sure the safety net we DO employ does not encourage permanent residence in social programs.

As long as there are people who believe the government should handle their lives from cradle to grave, there will be a conservative voice.

ASUG8 wrote:I think most people regardless of party affiliation would agree that there should be some safety net for those who are truly in need, be it permanently for some disability or temporarily in the case of unemployment or underemployment. It's a sliding scale on just how much each individual believes that safety net should cover.

The Tea Party and the extreme left have nearly ripped the country apart over the last few years when most people classify themselves somewhere closer to the middle in their politics. You can be conservative without being a batshit crazy Tea Partier just as you can be liberal without hugging the bark off every tree within 100 yards.

IMO, a recession of the depth that we've experienced over the last few years has contributed to a perception of an increased welfare state (maybe not incorrect) which riles the right and emboldens the left. I don't recall feeling this disheartened and apathetic about our government's ability to do the right thing as I have been the last few years, and that falls on both parties in power.

Chizzang wrote:The laws of Social and Political Entropy in action... only with an unlimited supply source
(our citizenry's personal finances)

Ever expanding and becoming more random, larger and less organized - creeping into every aspect filling every corner - and instead of dissipating naturally into nothingness it is continually supplied and re-invigorated so as to never stop it's gradual suffocating expansion...

That ^ is what we have today gentlemen
(I just wrote that up off the top of my pointy head, if you'd like more enigmatic hyperbole stay tuned)

Chizzang wrote:The laws of Social and Political Entropy in action... only with an unlimited supply source
(our citizenry's personal finances)

Ever expanding and becoming more random, larger and less organized - creeping into every aspect filling every corner - and instead of dissipating naturally into nothingness it is continually supplied and re-invigorated so as to never stop it's gradual suffocating expansion...

That ^ is what we have today gentlemen
(I just wrote that up off the top of my pointy head, if you'd like more enigmatic hyperbole stay tuned)

kalm wrote:It's as if they're afraid that if they admit it's legitimate for Uncle Sam to redistribute a portion of their income, they'll have no way to object if he comes for all of it.

kalm wrote:So everybody pretty much agrees we need a social safety net with greater efficiency!

kalm wrote:So everybody pretty much agrees we need a social safety net with greater efficiency!

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:So everybody pretty much agrees we need a social safety net with greater efficiency!

Greater Efficiency is probably impossible. We need a social safety net where those who aren't premanantly incapable of caring for themselves or in retirement or whatever other appropriate classification exist, are not incentivized to remain within that safety net. In fact the safety should be devised to incentivise leaving it within a reasonable time frame.

CID1990 wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Greater Efficiency is probably impossible. We need a social safety net where those who aren't premanantly incapable of caring for themselves or in retirement or whatever other appropriate classification exist, are not incentivized to remain within that safety net. In fact the safety should be devised to incentivise leaving it within a reasonable time frame.

Welfare camps

I'm serious

If you want food, go to the chow hall. Shoes? Go to the clothing warehouse. Report for work at 0730.

And before anybody calls me some kind of fascist I am simply suggesting a new CCC. Libs love themselves some New Deal so here you go.

CID1990 wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Greater Efficiency is probably impossible. We need a social safety net where those who aren't premanantly incapable of caring for themselves or in retirement or whatever other appropriate classification exist, are not incentivized to remain within that safety net. In fact the safety should be devised to incentivise leaving it within a reasonable time frame.

Welfare camps

I'm serious

If you want food, go to the chow hall. Shoes? Go to the clothing warehouse. Report for work at 0730.

And before anybody calls me some kind of fascist I am simply suggesting a new CCC. Libs love themselves some New Deal so here you go.

BDKJMU wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I think most people regardless of party affiliation would agree that there should be some safety net for those who are truly in need, be it permanently for some disability or temporarily in the case of unemployment or underemployment. It's a sliding scale on just how much each individual believes that safety net should cover.

The Tea Party and the extreme left have nearly ripped the country apart over the last few years when most people classify themselves somewhere closer to the middle in their politics. You can be conservative without being a batshit crazy Tea Partier just as you can be liberal without hugging the bark off every tree within 100 yards.

IMO, a recession of the depth that we've experienced over the last few years has contributed to a perception of an increased welfare state (maybe not incorrect) which riles the right and emboldens the left. I don't recall feeling this disheartened and apathetic about our government's ability to do the right thing as I have been the last few years, and that falls on both parties in power.

And you can be a conservative while being a rational, level headed Tea Partier.

I agree with most everything else you wrote. We need a social safety net, but it needs to be trimmed back a good bit.

OL FU wrote:

Chizzang wrote:The laws of Social and Political Entropy in action... only with an unlimited supply source
(our citizenry's personal finances)

Ever expanding and becoming more random, larger and less organized - creeping into every aspect filling every corner - and instead of dissipating naturally into nothingness it is continually supplied and re-invigorated so as to never stop it's gradual suffocating expansion...

That ^ is what we have today gentlemen
(I just wrote that up off the top of my pointy head, if you'd like more enigmatic hyperbole stay tuned)

Why do I feel like I just smoked a joint

CID1990 wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Greater Efficiency is probably impossible. We need a social safety net where those who aren't premanantly incapable of caring for themselves or in retirement or whatever other appropriate classification exist, are not incentivized to remain within that safety net. In fact the safety should be devised to incentivise leaving it within a reasonable time frame.

Welfare camps

I'm serious

If you want food, go to the chow hall. Shoes? Go to the clothing warehouse. Report for work at 0730.

And before anybody calls me some kind of fascist I am simply suggesting a new CCC. Libs love themselves some New Deal so here you go.