Between the Lines: The Conservative Welfare State

Republicans should know their own history.

Comments (6)
Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Conservative Ann Coulter has made a career out of bad manners, so it was no surprise when she slammed her libertarian hosts at the annual International Students for Liberty confab in February as “pussies.” That was almost a compliment compared to “drunks” and “horny hicks,” two other terms Coulter has used to describe her political opponents.

A student raised Coulter’s ire by questioning her hawkish drug war stance: “How is it your business what I choose to put in my body?”

“It is my business when we are living in a welfare state,” Coulter responded. “Right now, I have to pay for your health care. I have to pay your unemployment. I have to pay for your food, for your housing. Get rid of the welfare state, then we’ll talk about drug legalization.”

One doesn’t have to choose between the drug war and the welfare state. But if one must, the drug war is worse. The welfare state confiscates one individual’s wealth to give to another. That’s unfair. But putting people behind bars for smoking a joint that is less harmful than the alcohol and tobacco that Coulter pumps into her body is a travesty.

Before Richard Nixon kicked off the drug war in 1971, nonviolent drug offenders constituted less than 10 percent of Americans in state and federal prisons. Now they are more than 25 percent of the (much larger) prison population.

What’s really rich about Coulter’s jeremiad is that had it not been for libertarians, her anti-welfare-state sentiment might have been banished from respectable company. In the six decades between the New Deal and the 1996 welfare reform, Republicans had been largely content to play tax collectors for the welfare system.

As Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley has noted, many of FDR’s New Deal redistributionist programs, such as Social Security and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, had their roots in Republican initiatives, including those of his predecessor, Herbert Hoover. GOP presidents Nixon and Gerald Ford expanded Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. Even Ronald Reagan, a conservative hero, refused to touch Social Security or Medicare. And George W. Bush boosted everything from food stamps to prescription drug coverage.

This didn’t happen in an intellectual vacuum. Conservative intellectuals over the decades criticized the welfare state, but mostly on prudential grounds. Irving Kristol, the founding father of neoconservativism, averred in 1976 that the GOP must “fully reconcile” itself to the welfare state if it were to have a political future. Even National Review founder William F. Buckley, who came closer to being a principled advocate of liberty, mostly recommended petty reforms like requiring recipients to do “street cleaning or general prettification work.”

Through all of this, libertarians were making the lonely, principled argument against the welfare state, noting that a government that habitually takes from one to give to another hurts both. It was this central insight that libertarian Charles Murray deployed to demonstrate welfare’s soul-killing consequences for its beneficiaries, paving the way for something resembling its genuine recalibration in 1996.

The welfare state suits conservatives just fine. Its existence gives them an excuse to regulate individual choices. And it’s their trump card for stopping liberty-oriented reforms they dislike.

Refusing to end the drug war is one example. But conservatives also have used the welfare state to rally public sentiment against immigration reforms, portraying poor Latino workers as welfare queens. And in the name of stopping abuse of taxpayer dollars, Republicans have enthusiastically backed invasive drug testing of welfare recipients and prohibited them from using cash assistance to buy morally dubious goods such as alcohol and lottery tickets.

The liberal welfare state and the conservative anti-sin state are two arms of the same statist pincer, squeezing out individual liberty. Libertarians should raise hell against both, because Ann Coulter doesn’t have the cojones to do so.•

Comments (6)
Post a Comment
Comment removed for violating terms of usage.
Posted by WKY momo on 6.11.13 at 16:51

This blog is all over the place and, of course, full of partisan rhetoric - something totally predictable at the advocate. It's a shame that individuals who lean right can't come here to read about the arts without constantly seeing liberal propaganda - hence my weakness of jumping into the fray often.

But back to the blog - this is an interesting approach to blame conservatives for failed liberal policies. So liberals took a conservative idea and took it to the extreme? So? .... And?

(Oh wait, sounds a lot like the NSA scandal - the lastest of a parade of scandals in the Obama administration - hardly any that have been addressed by advocate writers. Usually issues like this get the media matters spin here.... it's quite damning when there is NO MENTION of them. Radio silence.)

Having said all of that, who is limiting ounces of soda and overly concerned with smoking? More importantly, who is pushing a healthcare system where your personal choices will be increasingly linked to the government interest? We will be taxed or otherwise penalized for eating icecream. The good news is you'll find some way to blame conservatives for it.

Posted by Ben on 6.12.13 at 7:09

"The welfare state suits conservatives just fine. Its existence gives them an excuse to regulate individual choices. And it’s their trump card for stopping liberty-oriented reforms they dislike."

I used to be in the libertarian camp that said "if you want to do something, go ahead." As long as it didn't infringe on my liberty or cost me money, what do I care? But then Obamacare came along and all Americans have to be part of this huge insurance pool. Now this Administration is hiking smoking taxes and imposing a 10% tax on - of all things - tanning beds. Because they're bad and may drive up health costs. That's Obamacare: the greatest threat to these individual choices you hold so dear. Today it's tanning beds, tomorrow Big Macs and Big Gulps, you fat Americans.

Posted by Whither freedom? on 6.12.13 at 9:32

"Conservative Ann Coulter has made a career out of bad manners...." EQUALS telling the truth about Liberals

Posted by 100aces on 6.13.13 at 16:26

Back to Ann Coulter, for a moment. This woman is the QUEEN of all welfare queens. Every time she appears on TV, advertisers pay for the crap she spews out on whatever program hires her to create controversy. And, who ultimately pays for this advertising? Mostly middle class, working class and poor consumers (the 99%) who buy the produts advertised on these programs.

Ann Coulter is a rude woman, who shows no respect to people don't who share her crazy worldview. The best way to rid the world of this witch is to 1) not watch her on TV 2) don't buy her books and 3) especially, don't buy the products that sponsor the programs on which she appears. Taking these three steps will do the world a big favor.

Posted by Joe Kaminski on 6.16.13 at 16:24

"And, who ultimately pays for this advertising? Mostly middle class, working class and poor consumers (the 99%) who buy the produts advertised on these programs."

This is bizarre and incoherent even by typical Advocate standards.

"World to end tomorrow: Women and minorities to be hit hardest."

Posted by What? on 6.17.13 at 17:49



New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

Better Later?
More joining the ranks in favor of a later start time for high schools
Between the Lines: Riding the Brand
Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker are more afraid to lose than inspired to win.
More Than A Coal Job
A veteran of the Mount Tom energy plant begins again.
From Our Readers
In Satoshi We Trust?
Outside the Cage
How solid is the case for organic and cage-free egg production?
Between the Lines: Practically Organic
Does the organic farming movement make perfect the enemy of good?
Scene Here: The Kitchen Garden Farm