EC336

Readings in Political Theory (Note: Materials contained in this document were extracted from midterm examinations in Social Policy at the Graduate

School of Social Work at Boston College. Copyright is waived and EC336 students may copy and use these materials for examination preparation. Copying for any other purpose is expressly forbidden.)

3 of 5

EC336 Social Policy Analysis Woods College of Advancing Studies, Boston College

Readings in Political Theory 3 of 5

Professor Ware

Spring, 2006

"

~(cJw~~L~~(9~~MOctober 27, 1995

MIDTERM -- QUESTION #2

In an effective welfare state, living standards cease to be defined by wageand salary earnings or private charity. Citizens can bully elected officialsinto providing increasingly lavish entitlements at the expense of thetaxpayer. As the public sector becomes overloaded with demands andresponsibilities, society becomes ungovernable. The moral andeconomic self-discipline ostensibly required for a viable democracy isjeopardized (Esping-Andersen, J983,p. 29).

Social welfare expenditures augment the national income by increasinghuman potential, providing jobs, and creating a more humaneenvironment. Keynesians hypothesize that social welfare expendituresare investments in human capital which ultimately increase nationalwealth and therefore boost everyone's net income (Karger and Stoesz,J 990, p. J 0).

Capitalism has functioned to set limits on the tendency of democracytoward egalitarianism in economic life and popular participation inpolitics. It has generated hierarchical structures that have provedextraordinarily resistant to political intervention. And it has producedamong ordinary people a degree of passivity, a sense of their ownincapacities, that makes it very difficult to mobilize large numbers ofmen and women for sustained and coherent political action. Fearful anddependent in the workplace, they are unlikely to make forthright citizens.Once again, this effect should not be underestimated. It makesdemocracy in a capitalist society less meaningful than it might otherwisebe (Etzkowitz, J980, p. xxxii).

Such disparities in views of the effects of welfare and the economic system in

general on people's behavior and motivation are linked to different camps of political

~ ---~

~

t~g)

~ -- - --~

.

theory. These theories, or ideologies, play an important role in society as they serve to

describe, guide, and organize people, policy, and government. Three of these ideologies--

conservatism, liberalism, and socialism -- derive from and operate on the principle of

democracy, or a "government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or

through elected representatives; rule by the ruled" (Webster's New World Dictionary,

1976,p. 375). From this common root, they branch out into diverse paradigms of

political thought. .

The most fundamental difference between these ideologies is how they view

human nature. Conservatives believe that people are "relatively base and even

somewhat sinister" (Baradat, 1994,p. 22). Conservatives mistrust human nature, and

doubt people's ability to use reason to control their animalistic impulses and emotions.

While the majority of conservatives believe that all people are born equally human, they

contend that it is what one does after birth that counts (although one can be born into the

elite). Life is one big competition and the more you accomplish or win, the better you are

(Baradat, 1994,p. 22-23). The elite are people who have either been born into the upper-

class or have fought their way there, and therefore "are inherently better than others, and

because of that superiority, should be the ruling class" (Etzkowitz, 198O,p. xix).

According to Etzkowitz then, because the elite have the greatest intellect they ought to

rule the masses because they have the power and ingenuity to do so. Thus, from the

conservative standpoint, people are not equal, and in fact, "inequality is necessary for the

proper organization and successful functioning of society" (Etzkowitz, 198O,p. 281).

-- ~~

. __m_-

The liberals "believe that people are neither all good or all bad. While most

people are basically good, even good people have flaws. They will act benevolently

toward others much of the time but not necessarily in any and every situation"

(Etzkowitz, 1980,p. xxi). Liberals allow that people are physically and intellectually

different from one another, and since they also believe in human competition, they

recognize the results from that competition: differences in class, wealth, and prestige.

However, they argue that "these are only superficial differences. The fact that all people

are human -- equally human -- should be the condition that predisposes our conduct

toward one another" (Baradat, 1994,p. 23). "Liberals hold the position that inequality is

acceptable only if every member of the society is given the chance to overcome

inequality. Liberals emphasize providing the means, such as education and health care, to

enable those who start with a disadvantage to compete with those who have privileged

backgrounds" (Etzkowitz, 1980,p. 282).

Liberals believe that these means are provided within a capitalist society, and in

this respect liberalism is linked closely with the conservative perspective. Both of these

political paradigms tend "to regard capitalism as the 'best' economic mode of production

because it affords, they argue, the maximum feasible individual freedom. Each

perspective envisions as its 'ideal' society a perfectly functioning capitalist democracy"

(Gordon, 1977, p. 14).

--- -----

Socialists, who of the three fall the furthest to the left of the political spectrum

"believe that people are basically good. They naturally feel concern for fellow human

beings" (Etzkowitz, 1980,p. xxiv). Socialists recognize that people are different, but they

differ from liberalists and conservatives in that the society they envision is not based on

capitalistic competition that accentuates these inequalities, but cooperation that

emphasizes equality. "In general, radicals envision that socialism can provide a better

basis than capitalism for transition toward an 'ideal' society in which people could be free

to develop themselves as human beings and at the same time to cooperate with others in

developing their potential together" (Gordon. 1977,p. 8).

Socialists argue that people have the right to be treated equally within society

regardless of their differences -- they should have equal input (production) and,

consequently, the right to equal output (distribution). Everyone should participate in their

equitable share of society's work and everyone has the right to the products of that

collective work: material goods and social services necessary for ensuring individual

well-being. However; just as conservatives and liberals assume discrepancies in wealth

in their society, so do socialists. Socialist agree that people should be encouraged to

improve their individual talents and can be rewarded for their expertise in these areas

(Etzkowitz, 1980, p. xxv - xxiv).

- ------- ~

Only the most fanatic socialist wants to eliminate all differences inmaterial status. Most socialists recognize that people are different: someare more talented or hard working than others and should be rewardedfor their extra contributions. Still, they believe that all people have aright to a reasonably comfortable life, given the economy's ability toproduce enough for all. Consequently, they want to eliminate poverty.Extreme wealth is not necessarily incompatible with a socialist state(Baradat, 1994,p. 179),

as long as this accumulation of wealth does not preclude someone else from their fair

share of the distribution.

Hence, all three ideologies reward citizens who are deserving. However, the

definition of deserving citizens differ widely. Socialists believe that the "hard, dirty,

physical labor such as coal mining and housework merit society's rewards in the form of

good pay and high status" (Etzkowitz, 1980,p. 281). In contrast, conservatives would

reward people's corporate ingenuity and managerial expertise with better jobs, more

money, and greater social status and whilecleavingthe menial jobs to the country's poor.

Liberals reward corporate ingenuity as well, but believe that these rewards should not be

given at the expense of the rest of society.

Unequal incomes would still determine who can buy beachfrontcondominiums, second cars and college slots for academicunderachievers. But they would not block access to first homes, firstcars and college slots for solid students; or would they confer vastlyunequal power over legislators andjuries. As the British egalitarian R.H. Tawney once stated his reasonable goal: "Differences ofremuneration between different individuals might remain; contrastsbetween the civilization of different classes would vanish" (Gordon,1977,p. 33).

Liberals assert that these contrasts between the elite and the impoverished would

-

diminish through government regulation of industry and increased government support

for social services (Etzkowitz, 198O,p. 255). They believe that government responsibility

should be focused in three important areas: redistributing income, ensuring that the

market satisfies consumer preferences, and providing certain basic goods that the

market is incapable of providing (Gordon, 1977,p. 13). However, liberals believe that

while the government is obliged to carry out these necessary social functions, government

power should not become so centralized and powerful that it interferes with basic human

rights. "While most Americans desire a socially protective government, they do not

desire a iarge government" (Etzkowitz, 198O,p. 257).

Conservatives, who are against a large government as well, agree that the

government serves a protective function, although it's not a socially protective function

as in the liberal view. Since conservatives have a basically negative view of human

nature, they believe that strong social institutions are necessary to impose social order

(Etzkowitz, 198O,p. xix). They favor impersonal, "authoritarian controls over the

individuals in society" (Baradat, 1994,p. 22), and "desire a strong government and

military to protect the security of the United States" (Etzkowitz, 198O,p. 255). Since

"they believe that human reason is severely limited and cannot be relied upon to find

solutions to ponderous problems, they tend to place great importance on institutions and

traditions that have evolved over time. They value longevity for its own sake and resist

. change in social institutions" (Baradat, 1994,p. 23).

However, because even the ruling class has these irrational tendencies,

conservatives argue that the government should stay out of the marketplace, which is the

"fundamental institution" (Etzkowitz, 1980,p. xix) in society. "Conservatives tend to

have greater faith than liberals in the efficiency and optimality of the private market

mechanism, and to have greater fear than liberals do of both government inefficiency and

government infringement on personal liberties" (Gordon, 1977,p. 13). The economy

therefore, should be self-regulating (Karger and Stoesz, 1990,p. 11), and the business

corporation, whose primary goal is to expand the economy, should be viewed as a model

social institution (Etzkowitz. 1980.p. xx).

If the marketplace is the primary institution in a conservative society, private

property is the "inalienable right" (Baradat, 1994,p. 24) derived from that institution.

This right to private property dominates virtually every other human right, and just as

government should limit interference in the marketplace, the government has no

legitimate power to interfere with the individual's right to accumulate property (Baradat,

1994, p. 24).

Socialists andfree-market conservatives begin with fundamentallydifferent ideas of what engenders social solidarity. To the laissez-fairemind, the good society results when each individual is given maximumopportunity to fulfill his or her own talents. The presence of "free"social income is a wicked wrench in the wheels of a free society,because one person's benefit becomes an imposed burden on someoneelse. Whereas socialists view solidarity in terms of a collectivelyshared responsibility for personal misfortunes, laissez-faire ideologyinsists that the optimal human community must spring from an absoluteminimum of imposed burdens and responsibilities" (Esping-Anderson,1983, p. 30).

- -

It is the socialist position that society's institutions often subvert people's good

nature and their equality when they neglect to satisfy human needs. Hence, the goal of

socialism is to create social institutions that allow for the greatest fulfillment of human

needs. Private property, they argue, should not be the fundamental institution of society

as it promotes inequality between the classes (Etzkowitz, 1980,p. xxiv). Socialists argue

that inequality is "fundamentally unacceptable and that society should be reorganized to

eliminate distinctions based on inherited property. The basic form of inequality derives

from the fact that members of one class control the means of production in a society,

thereby making all others subservient to them. To eliminate inequality, the means of

production of a society must be socialized and controlled, directed and coordinated by

those who work" (Etzkowitz, 1980,p. xxiv).

As the above notes, a major concept in socialism is placing ownership of

production with the public. Socialists believe that a free society needs to be cautious

about centralized power, and/or placing all their productivity in the hands of the

government. But much more important than the production of goods is the distribution of

goods within society (Baradat, 1994,p.176-177).

Socialists believe that real social welfare is structural and can only beaccomplished through a redistribution of resources. In a just society --where all goods, resources, and opportunities are made available toeveryone -- all but the most specific forms of welfare (health care,rehabilitation, counseling, and so forth) are unnecessary. In the contextof a radical framework, poverty is inextricably linked to structuralinequality. Therefore, people need welfare because they are exploitedand denied opportunity to resources. In an unjust society, welfarefunctions as a substitute, albeit a puny one, for social justice (Kargerand Stoesz, 1990,p.13).

--~- --

In contrast to this structural view of poverty, "in the conservative view, poverty is

the result of an individual's lack of success in improving his or her economic condition; it

is not the responsibility of society or a result of existing social arrangements" (Etzkowitz,

1980,p. xx). In fact in the conservative viewpoint, poverty is essential for efficient

market functioning. Poverty ensures that the menial jobs are done, creates social service

and other relatedjobs, and helps guarantee the status of the elite. The poor as a class also

serve a necessary role in a conservative society. They help subsidize affluent people, buy

goods that others don't want, uphold social norms by being punished as deviants, serve as

shock absorbers to the affluent when they are made to cushion economic and political

change and growth in society, among other things (Gordon, 1977,p. 312 - 316).

Conservatives believe that the forces of the free marketplace, or, in essence,

"survival of the fittest" -- ensures society's general welfare. Ronald Reagan's stance on

welfare exemplified this conservative view of poverty. The key, Reagan believed, "to

solving the welfare problem was not only cutting back on assistance but also removing

the responsibility for the needy from the vast federal bureaucracy, where, in his opinion,

waste and inefficiency abounded, and returning it to the states and localities" (Trattner,

1994,p. 364). In other words, Reagan did not believe that welfare should be

implemented from so many different bureaucratic levels at one time as this was a waste

time, resources and money; there should only be one institution responsible (i.e. the.state), not two or more.

Liberals would argue that to let the unregulated economic market work to solve

poverty is to wrong. While poverty may be the result of lack of motivation or laziness on

the part of some people, the underlying cause for most of the poverty-stricken is the

environment. Hence, liberals believe because it is partly society's fault that people are

pocr, the federal government needs to play an active role in helping to eliminate or at

least alleviate poverty. A liberal believes "in more government action to meet individual

need" (DiNitto, 1995,p. 22).

The American political-bureaucratic complex must be restructured sothat it will attend to the demands of average citizens rather than of thosebest organized to apply maximal political pressure or the largestcampaign contributions. The right combination of centralization andcitizen control has to be found to make this complex both effective anddemocratic, responsive to the majority rule as well as to the rights ofminorities, at state and inferior levels as well as at the federal level.some basic services, such as health, education, legal aid, and housing,should be available to everyone at a decent level of quality, so that forexample, the poor would not be confined to slums or public housingprojects but could choose from the same kind of housing as everyoneelse (Etzkowitz, 1980,p. 300).

Socialists, who take this a step further and demand the creation of the welfare

state declare that "only eliminating class differences through a radical restructuring of

society would solve the problem of poverty" (DiNitto, 1995,p. 84).

.

The state is a welfare state when it guarantees a decent standard ofliving to all, as a citizen's right. For this kind of commitment to beserious, the welfare state must be founded on three basic principles.First, it must vest each individual to entitlements that do not directlydepend on work performance, the marketplace, or for that matter, theProtestant ethic of self-reliance. All citizens are in effect guaranteedbasic economic security. Second, it entails a commitment to

- - --

.distributive justice and substantive equality. Beyond assuringminimum standards of decency, the welfare state in principle andpractice will seek to correct the gross maldistributions of incomes andwealth produced by the market. Third, and this is perhaps the mostimportant, the welfare state must be based on "social solidarity"(Esping-Anderson, p. 28.)

The way in which each of these three different views see humanity and equality

dictates how they view social problems (or if they even see an issue as a problem) and

how they envision institutions playing a role in the solution to these problems. From

their foundation on how they view human nature, they obviously look at society and its

problems very differently, but fairly consistently within their own paradigm.

Conservatives see individuals as responsible for their own well-being, arguing that

institutions can impose social control, but economics should be the ultimate governor

because the market is the primary institution and competition is the primary human

motivator. Liberals work within the capitalist system, however, they believe that

humans are influenced by the environment. For this reason, their personal situations are

often not their fault, and so society has a responsibility to offer support. The government

plays a key role in organizing society to help the poor. Socialism, on the other hand,

demands a complete restructuring of society. Socialists state that capitalism is

fundamentally wrong, as the competition it creates breeds human inequality. Humans

should cooperate with each other, and ensure that everyone has equal and adequate access

. to all human necessities.

,

-

.

. With regard to health care, one can see these opposing views plainly. Etzkowitz

says that health care is an important part of the economic security that socialists want to

guarantee all citizens. Socialists believe that access to good health care is a basic human

right, and that the only way that America could offer health care to all citizens would be

to completely overhaul the system and arrange for everyone to have a say in how it would

be reorganized. The system would need to be democratized and deprofessionalized

(Etzkowitz, 1980,p. 221-223). I believe this means that in a socialist system, each and

every citizen would be insured and guaranteed quality health care under a comprehensive

insurance plan, i.e. if health care is believed to be a basic human right, then each and

every citizen ought to have access to quality care. In addition, each and every citizen

would be involved in the decision making regarding the administration of that health

care. In essence, the system would be controlled by the people -- it would truly be their

health care system.

Liberals also believe that health care is a basic human right, however, they argue

that guaranteeing a comprehensive health care plan can be accomplished within the

existing system through better coordination and financing. While consumers should have

a say in the improvements, that input would be limited. Health care would continue to be

administered and controlled by doctors and professionals (Etzkowitz, 1980,p. 221-223).

Although I do not know too much about what Hillary Clinton was proposing with her.

health care plan, I believe it closely mirrored the liberal view outlined above. She wanted.

--- - - ---

to guarantee health care to all people, but she believed it could be done through our

established system (albeit with revisions). She envisioned that the system would

continue to be run by doctors and professionals, and in fact consulted these professionals

on their ideas for change. Citizens, or consumers of health care, would have had very

little say in the changes that were proposed, in fact, I believe that had the plan been

passed into policy, consumer choice in doctors, clinics, etc. would have been severely

limited. Therefore, while liberals believe that health care is a basic human right, it is the

government's job to administer that right, and so, the government ought to make health

care decisions for the people.

Conservatives also argue that health care is best left under the control of doctors,

who then should compete for their business. Government should not interfere with the

individual's choice of health care provider. Health care, like most other issues in the

conservative paradigm, is the individual's choice and responsibility (Etzkowitz, 1980,p.

221). Hence, because individuals are free to choose, health care ought to be a free choice,

and because competition is a driving force in human nature, doctors ought to be able to

compete for their business. This conservative viewpoint allows that many people will not

have access to health care, but it is accepted as a fact of competition." r

'"

,ftM ~ ~ \h<,..,,) , 1-U) Like many Americans, my own political views are a mostly a mix of the liberal

and conservative paradigms. I believe in some of the socialist ideas, however as Baradat

--~--

.

REFERENCES

.

Baradat, Leon P. (1994). PoliticalIdeologies: Their Origins and Impact. New Jersey:

Prentice- Hall, Inc.

DiNitto, Diana M. (1995). Social Welfare: Politicsand Public Policy. Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta. (Winter, 1983). After the Welfare State. Public Welfare, 28 -

34.

Etzkowitz, Henry. .(1980). Is America Possible? S1.Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Gordon, David M. (1977). Problems in PoliticalEconomy: An Urban Perspective.

Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

,; Karger, Howard t and Stoesz, David. (1990). American Social Welfare Policy: A

StructuralA,pproach. White Plains,NY: Longman.

.

Trattner,Walter 1. (1994). From Poor Law to Welfare State. NY: The Free Press.

Webster's New World Dictionary (1976). New Jersey: William Collins & World

Publishing Co.

.

.

-- ---