Self-help, family-provided assistance, help provided by local churches, temples and mosques, or by one’s town, city or state, should be the first-choice service providers, where feasible, with federal services the option of last resort.

Thoughtful conservatives (and that term is not an oxymoron) do advocate for effective social welfare services for individuals genuinely unable to provide for themselves.  Conservatives are less inclined to support widespread entitlement programs which provide for the welfare of persons otherwise readily able to care for themselves (which is most of us).

However, it has been a common liberal tactic to loudly proclaim some new universal right or benefit, and to develop a program to extend to nearly everyone, in order to gain widespread support for what in reality is an income transfer program from the more well-to-do (including the large middle class) to the less well-to-do.  A prime example of this is the social security program.  Ostensibly established to prevent the experience of dire poverty for most Americans upon retirement, in reality it is an income transfer program whereby the relatively rich subsidize the poor, the widowed, the orphaned, the disabled.  Paradoxically, it is also an income transfer program that is ironically structured so that African American men do not live long enough, on average, to collect any retirement benefits, and hence end up supporting millions of white retirees.  This is not social justice.   

Conservatives believe that the rights to which Americans are entitled consist primarily of the freedom from government interference in certain areas of their life, the exercise of certain fundamental activities as enumerated in the Bill of Rights found in the U.S. Constitution.  Among these are the freedoms of the press, of speech, of assembly, to petition government, of religion, to keep and bear arms, freedom from excessive bail or cruel or unusual punishment, freedom from the uncompensated confiscation of property by the Federal government, etc. Among the few entitlements provided for in the Bill of Rights are the rights to a speedy trial by jury, to legal counsel, and to confront witnesses.

From a conservative perspective, Americans constitutionally have very few entitlements to the provision of other forms of governmental services.  There are no constitutionally established federal ‘rights,’ for example, to be provided with food, with housing, a pension, high wages, with medical care or employment, prescription drugs, education, dental or optical care, podiatry or chiropractic services, psychotherapy, or massages.  These latter benefits, constituting as they do costly services, or monetary payments, of necessity imply someone pay for them.  That ‘someone’ ultimately consists of the taxpayers, who are forced via the income tax and other involuntary assessments to provide for any such governmental services.

Someone who has 10% of her wages deducted as income tax could be said to provide a reasonable contribution to the larger society.  Someone who has 100% of her wages collected by the government, a person who works and receives no earnings in return for one’s labor, is a slave.  A worker who has 50% of her salary taken by federal taxation is only half a slave.  Somewhere in between a 0% and a 100% tax rate is a fair balance, and in general, conservatives seek this balance.  Not the complete freedom from taxation, but a more reasonable rate than is presently inflicted upon most wage earners.

Conservatives note that in The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx advocated for “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax,” and for the “Abolition of all right of inheritance.”  Such policies remain essential elements of contemporary liberal political platforms.  In contrast, conservatives believe that individuals have the right to keep as much of their own earnings and property as possible, including the right to pass on one’s estate to one’s spouse, children, other family and friends, without having large portions of it confiscated by the State.

Karl Marx also advocated for the eventual abolition of the traditional family, with child care being provided for by the State.  Conservatives believe that the best care for young children is provided by their parents, not the State, and tend to resist liberally-promulgated social policies which supplant parental roles with state-provided care (e.g., taxpayer-supported day care, early or after-school programming which substitutes for parent care, etc.).  We believe that federal taxation should be as low as possible, allowing citizens and businesses to keep as much of their own earnings, earning which they can spend as they see fit on the welfare of themselves and their families, as being more likely to make wiser decisions on how to spend their money than can the federal government.  It takes a family to raise a child — not a government village or day-care program funded from the pocketbooks of families.  Keeping tax revenue as low as reasonable also acts as a brake, slowing the growth of government which is an added benefit.

We believe that public social welfare services should be funded and controlled by the public at the lowest decentralized level of government as possible, with decision-making residing at the level of the individual states as preferable to federal oversight; county control preferable to state; and city over county.  To be sure, some services are best coordinated and provided for at the federal level, services such as defense, postal mail, interstate transportation and navigation, etc.  There is no contention among serious conservatives that all public services should be devolved to the lowest level of governance, only those for which it is practical and more efficient, such as education.  What would you prefer, county and state control of elementary schools, or a national system of federally controlled elementary schools?  Which system do you believe would be more efficient and responsive to local needs?  Nature tells us that there is strength in diversity — and our democratic system can profit from diverse laboratories of state-based innovation rather than the actions of an unresponsive and distant federal bureaucracy.

Conservatives generally value the sanctity of human life, and many (but not all) advocate reducing the widespread availability of abortions on demand, for example by prohibiting the medical aborting of third-trimester and otherwise viable babies, or of permitting abortion for reasons of convenience (e.g., for birth control).  In our view, true social justice would be served through public policies that would promote the mother carrying unwanted babies to term, giving birth to these infants, and then giving them up for adoption if the infant is not wanted by her parents.  The mother’s nine months of inconvenience are seen as a small price to pay for the preservation of a single human life and all the joys associated with living for that new person.  Perversely, most liberal feminists (not to be confused with the numerous conservative feminists) promote pro-choice policies which result in the deaths of tens of thousands of fetal baby girls annually, and many liberal African American leaders similarly support such laws permitting the yearly abortion of tens of thousands of African American  babies.  These practices, in conservative eyes, are not true social justice.  Indeed, terms such as ‘holocaust’ and ‘genocide’ come to mind.

But we acknowledge that some areas of social policy are clearly conflictual within the conservative camp.  Perversely, many (but not all) conservatives support the death penalty as a punishment and deterrent for particularly heinous crimes (e.g., first degree murder).  And conservatives are generally (but not always) supportive of the earlier use of military force than are liberals.  We wish to promote lasting marriages, but most conservatives want the state of legal matrimony restricted to unrelated heterosexual couples and not extended to gay & lesbian, sibling, or parent-child couples or to multiple partnerships.  We acknowledge these conflicts, and work toward resolving them, if possible.

Conservatives support the free enterprise system as the most remarkably effective engine for human progress known to history, and wish to place the smallest feasible burdens and impediments as practical (not necessarily as possible) in the path of the growth and development of entrepreneurial enterprises.  Some issues, such as protecting the environment, or in providing for worker safety, call for a strong federal role.  Others are best dealt with at the level of state and local governments.  

Conservatives do support the provision of social welfare services to the most vulnerable members of American society, to the intellectually or physically disabled, to those truly destitute, to infants and children.  That is why conservative leadership and support was both essential and obtained in the passage of federal legislation such as the establishment of social security programs, the 1960's civil and voting rights acts (perversely, in the teeth of strong southern Democratic opposition, led by individuals such as Democratic Representative Strom Thurmond!), and the recent affirmative action and welfare reforms.  That is why under the conservative administrations of Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, the federal budgets for health and human services consistently increased!  The Republican Party (the party of Lincoln) was originally established as an anti-slavery party.  This led to the Civil War and the eventual emancipation of all slaves in the United States.

But conservatives believe that the most effective way to provide assistance is at the level of the individual states, in conjunction with private, for-profit, market-driven and not-for profit non-governmental organizations, and through faith-based social service programs.  These latter programs are nothing new, have always played a major role in American social welfare, and will continue to do so.  We believe that this is a good thing.  We believe that it is usually desirable for decisions to be made at the local, community level, as much as possible, and involve the views of consumers of social welfare services.  But we also believe that self-help, family-provided assistance, help provided by local churches, temples and mosques, or by one’s town, city or state, should be the first-choice service providers, where feasible, with federal services the option of last resort.

Conservatives believe that federal funds devoted to the provision of social welfare services should be carefully expended to support evidence-based programs, those social interventions backed by scientifically credible research indicating their likely ability to help citizens, rather than hurt them.  We generally believe that social welfare programs should be carefully pilot-tested and shown to be helpful before being implemented at the national level.  This will help avoid the premature funding and distribution of large scale programs which may not be helpful.

Recent examples include President Clinton’s spending hundreds of millions of dollars during the 1990s in support of so-called family preservation programs, programs which in many cases, subsequent research has shown to neither preserve families nor protect children.  On a smaller scale, again during the 1990s, Georgia’s Democratic Governor Zell Miller spent millions of dollars to establish a statewide network of so-called ‘boot camps’ for youthful offenders, programs which some research has subsequently shown to result in higher levels of youthful recidivism than alternative approaches to helping delinquent youth.  These boot camps were partially dismantled by Governor Miller’s Democratic successor.

What a waste!  Such programs, however well intentioned, are not good examples of the judicious expenditure of public funds.  Potential social welfare programs which survive pilot testing should have ongoing and continuous program evaluation mechanisms built into them, and adequately funded, to ensure that initially positive results do not gradually deteriorate over time.  Programs found to be ineffective should be improved or public funding eliminated.

Conservatives believe it is neither practical nor wise to fund welfare programs solely on the basis of  ‘need.’  ‘Costs’ and ‘effectiveness’ also need to be taken into effect, and consideration given to the social justice of taking tax money for the middle class to provide services to some individuals who may not really ‘need’ them.  The needs of Americans for social care and other services such as health care, far outstrips our ability to fund such programs.  The latest need which we are hearing about is that Americans have a ‘right’ to prescription drugs.  What next?  Eyeglasses?  Contacts?  Hearing aids?  Dentures?  Heart transplants?  Medications to treat erectile dysfunction?  Acne medicine?  Once one accepts the implicit assumption that citizens’ ‘needs’ should be provided by the State, there is literally no limit to how much those citizens who are largely self-sustaining can be called upon to contribute, on an involuntary basis via taxation, to the care of strangers.  Legislators who advocate robbing a small number of Peters to pay many Pauls can always rely on the support of the voting Pauls.

Social welfare conservatives are not anarchists, advocating the abolition of government.  We do advocate for a smaller, less intrusive, and less well-funded federal government than we currently enjoy.  Social welfare services are necessary, but federally provided social care is generally seen as less desirable than locally established, controlled and funded programs.  The principle of creeping incrementalism functions as an almost irresistible force leading to the ever expanding role of federal social care programs.  The initially small scale social security program has had its benefits gradually become ever more inclusive.  The proportion of one’s income liable to social security taxation is gradually increasing, the percentage of tax enacted steadily grows, while the age at which one can receive retirement benefits is slowly increasing.  Fraud in receiving social security benefits is common.  The families and friends of deceased persons continue to receive retirement payments, and fraudulently ‘disabled’ people qualify for and receive SSI benefits, benefits paid for with money taken from middle-class workers.   Conservatives are not driven by selfishness, but by a genuine compassion for needy individuals, and by the desire to see them receive legitimately effective programs.  These are not always provided by the federal government.    

Conservative social workers labor as strangers in a strange land.  The words of one social worker writing in the April 2003 Issue of the NASW NEWS, the flagship newsletter of the largest professional social work association, are seemingly representative of the views of the majority of social workers: “If you accept that social workers have an obligation to advance social justice and that political engagement is a means to accomplish that end, then you have to accept that we will reject conservative thought and conservative politicians” (Newdom, 2003, p. 3).  This is unfortunate as conservative thought, practitioners and politicians have contributed much to genuinely progressive social welfare policies and programs in the United States, and will continue to do so.

References

Newdom, F.  (2003, April).  On politics and values.  NASW News, 48 (4), p. 3.