The Politics of the Welfare State, Essay Example

The “Welfare State,” as we know it today, has its roots in the early 20^th Century, with the presidency of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was during his presidency that “The New Deal” was established; it was a covenant between the government and the people that the government would provide assistance to citizens in need, a so-called “safety-net” for those who otherwise might fall through the cracks of society. In some ways, the Welfare State arose from accidents of history, as there were incidents and circumstances that helped make it easier, and sometimes even imperative, for Roosevelt to implement programs and reforms that intended to establish this governmental safety net. Events such as the Wall Street crash of 1929, and the U.S. involvement in World War II, helped the policies of the Welfare State gain a firm footing. The subsequent growth of unions served to help the policies flourish for a time, making these policies very popular for a time. Eventually, though a backlash arose, leaving us with our currently divided nation.

The Wall Street crash affected the Welfare State in several ways. First, the idea that “Big Business” held the answer to everything was discarded (p 61, 72). People no longer trusted that “take-charge-men like Herbert Hoover” would solve all of the nation’s economic problems (p 72). Second, it was conventional wisdom, prior to the crash, that social welfare policies were inherently dangerous. This idea was also discarded, mostly out of necessity. Social welfare programs such as Social Security and unemployment insurance suddenly looked like good ideas.

Following the Great Depression, and the implementation of Social Security and programs like the Works Department (which was basically a program where the government put people to work), the nation saw the longest sustained period of growth in history (p 62). As the author notes, “it became difficult for conservatives to claim that government can’t do anything well after the U.S. government demonstrated its ability not just to fight a global war but also to oversee a vast mobilization of natural resources” (p63).

Many of the people who were helped by Roosevelt’s New Deal became involved in Unions. The Unions were inherently political, as they supported the Democrats, who in turn supported the Unions (p 70). This led to a growing political awareness among the lower- and middle-classes, which then led to continued support for the Democrats (p 65). At the time, voters in the South were the largest supporters of the Democrats, as they were the ones who gained the most from welfare programs (p 66).

The “New Deal” started to unravel under President Truman (p 66). He tried to establish a nationalized health care policy, but it was opposed by white voters in the South, who feared it would lead to integrated hospitals (this eventually did happen under Medicare) (p68). Over time, the strong support the Democrats once had leveled out, as social changes in the 1960s, as well as changes in voter demographics, led to growing support for Republicans (p 77, 78).

Interestingly, we are now seeing some of the same forces at work that led to the initial strong support for the New Deal. A period of economic expansion in the Clinton years has been followed by an economic downturn. Public reaction to events like the Madoff scandal (where Bernard Madoff was able to steal billions of dollars from investors, largely due to a lack of oversight from government regulators), has increased fear and distrust among voters. As they did in the 1920s, voters aren’t waiting for big business to solve its own problems. The boom of the 1990s has been followed by a bust in the 2000s, and people are again turning to the government for relief. Recently, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, was able to push Health Care Reform through Congress; it is the largest social welfare program since the New Deal.

Though Obama’s Health Care Reform legislation is not quite the “Nationalized Health Care” that many Democrats supported, it may well be an indication that history is in the process of repeating itself.