Every country on earth has within its borders citizens who hold opposing worldviews. Whether divided by class, religion, social or political ideology, the vast majority of the people of the world carry their own opinions on how the world around them should look. In healthy, functioning democracies the people are able to put a voice to those opinions at the polling place; they then look to leaders to shape policy toward those worldviews.
Among democratic societies, the United States stands alone with its large percentage of people who prefer to see an extremely limited federal government, or none at all. But the story doesn’t end with citizen disapproval of government; there a large number of policymakers, whether elected or appointed or of the lobbying variety, who share these views. This outlook is best exemplified in the rhetoric of right-wing strategist Grover Norquist, who commented early in the George W. Bush administration that he would like to see government shrunk to the size “where we can drown it in the bathtub” (2001, The Nation). Of course, when natural disasters come along the leaders that espouse said views are all too happy to take the forthcoming federal government assistance.
Which brings us to the recent battle in Congress over the extension of unemployment benefits. Republican lawmakers, in lock-step fashion (along with one Democrat) oppose the extension of benefits, despite several economists indicating that unemployment insurance acts as a form of economic stimulus; folks receiving UI benefits have no choice but to spend this money, as it often barely covers basic expenses. The only argument put forth by conservatives in opposition, besides fiscal responsibility, is that UI benefits are a disincentive to work; that the unemployed are somehow lazy and actually enjoy living off the relative pittance this assistance provides. The fiscal argument is ludicrous and hypocritical; where was the fiscal responsibility crowd when they bailed out the banks, or voted to fund wars off the books? The argument that the unemployed don’t want to work when they can collect UI is at best disingenuous and mean-spirited, at worst avarice. Most of the politicians who view the world this way either do not remember what it is like to work hard for a paycheck, or have never worked an honest day in their lives. I find it hard to believe that their constituents are not out in the streets protesting this disdain for the average worker.
Another hypocritical aspect of the conservative opposition to extending UI benefits is that most of the policymakers who have taken this stance proclaim that they are Christians and tout their “family values” credentials at every opportunity. When you consider that the amount of UI benefit a person receives is based on their earning potential when they have a job, unemployment benefits are even more disproportionately necessary for the poor – and likely inadequate. We all know what Jesus had to say about the poor. For those who don’t, see Matthew 25:31-46 (…whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me…).
So the opposing worldviews of smaller (and smaller) government versus government that addresses the needs of its people in times of crisis and doesn’t ask the poorest among us to sacrifice more has created social conflict for time immemorial. It will only continue to grow and fester as the economic hard times continue. In Cultural Anthropology, Haviland, Prins, et al posit that “the culture of a people who experience high rates of malnutrition, violence, crime, delinquency, suicide, emotional disorders and despair, and environmental degradation may be said to be operating less well than that of another people who exhibit few such problems.” Among these issues, one that has already seen a spike since the recession began is suicide (Huffington Post, 7/26/10). When a society has a flimsy social safety net, and the “losers” in that society, those that lose in the competition that is capitalism, fall through the net, what happens to them? Do we just cast them aside? They were promised a shot at the American Dream, but what they are finding is that not everyone can have it, no matter how hard they work. Someone has to clean up after the rest of us. Most of the developed world (or at least the richest countries) provide for the basic needs of its people through some form of social welfare system. Does the leadership who want to do the people’s business and make sure the least of us are not cast aside, have the courage to stand up to the hypocrites and bullies in their midst? Perhaps the more important question is, will the American people demand it?
Dreyfuss, R. (2001). Grover Norquist: Field marshal of the Bush plan. Accessed at http://www.thenation.com/article/grover-norquist-field-marshal-bush-plan
Harris, J.D. (2010). Suicide rates up since recession began, debt a way of life for 99ers. Accessed at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/suicide-rates-up-since-re_n_658668.html
Haviland, W. (2008). Cultural anthropology. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
