In Sunday's NYT op-ed contributor Ross Douthat here offers some trenchant observations of the deep factors that contributed to President Obama's reelection earlier this month. Douthat peers through the political foam of changing demographics, implications of the "women's vote," the growing secularity of America, and yes, even the poor economy, to observe that the fraying of America's social fabric lies behind the persistent electoral appeal of the Democratic party.
Growing numbers of economically vulnerable folks who are not part of any tangible social web (family, neighborhood, church, etc.) feel deeply the need for some source of stability in an uncertain world. And virtual networks don't cut it; folks at risk need the real even if that "real" is a government safely net. Even a leaky bucket is better than no bucket at all.
Douthat admits that the Republican message didn't reach the masses of disconsolate voters. Promises (threats?) to cut back on the very government programs that provide the backstop or insurance against the real risks faced by many people aren't likely to get their votes. And from my perspective, doubling down on a libertarian agenda will do little to address the felt needs of many millions of voters.
Oddly, the best hope for the libertarian wing of the Republican party is that the second Obama administration will oversee a boom in the American economy. The American ethos of rugged individualism resonates when voters aren't deeply concerned about their next meal, the cost of health care, resources for child care, and the like.
It is certainly the case that the concerns of the world are generally met better by ground level associations than government agencies but the prospect of no help from any quarter is more than most will bear. But it's here that Douthat sounds a trenchant warning: the cost of current state-based solutions to social problems is unsustainable. In his words, liberals shouldn't gloat over their recent success. Even disregarding the relative (lack of) effectiveness of many government programs, we won't be able to afford them in the long run.
Libertarian-leaning conservatives and contemporary liberals are both in a dream world. Many libertarians fail to see the real needs around them or, if they do, imagine those needs can be met if only the needy would pull up themselves by their bootstraps. State-centric liberals are pleased to meet such needs through government action but fail to comprehend that unless the fabric of society is reknit together those needs will only increase and quickly surpass the ability of the state to meet them.
Can the American social order be reconstituted? Only time will tell but neither trusting in the individual nor the state is the answer.
Growing numbers of economically vulnerable folks who are not part of any tangible social web (family, neighborhood, church, etc.) feel deeply the need for some source of stability in an uncertain world. And virtual networks don't cut it; folks at risk need the real even if that "real" is a government safely net. Even a leaky bucket is better than no bucket at all.
Douthat admits that the Republican message didn't reach the masses of disconsolate voters. Promises (threats?) to cut back on the very government programs that provide the backstop or insurance against the real risks faced by many people aren't likely to get their votes. And from my perspective, doubling down on a libertarian agenda will do little to address the felt needs of many millions of voters.
Oddly, the best hope for the libertarian wing of the Republican party is that the second Obama administration will oversee a boom in the American economy. The American ethos of rugged individualism resonates when voters aren't deeply concerned about their next meal, the cost of health care, resources for child care, and the like.
It is certainly the case that the concerns of the world are generally met better by ground level associations than government agencies but the prospect of no help from any quarter is more than most will bear. But it's here that Douthat sounds a trenchant warning: the cost of current state-based solutions to social problems is unsustainable. In his words, liberals shouldn't gloat over their recent success. Even disregarding the relative (lack of) effectiveness of many government programs, we won't be able to afford them in the long run.
Libertarian-leaning conservatives and contemporary liberals are both in a dream world. Many libertarians fail to see the real needs around them or, if they do, imagine those needs can be met if only the needy would pull up themselves by their bootstraps. State-centric liberals are pleased to meet such needs through government action but fail to comprehend that unless the fabric of society is reknit together those needs will only increase and quickly surpass the ability of the state to meet them.
Can the American social order be reconstituted? Only time will tell but neither trusting in the individual nor the state is the answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment