Conservatives and the Welfare State: War or Peace?

James Pethokoukis, echoing AEI President Arthur Brooks, argues that American conservatives have to declare peace on the safety net. Andrew McCarthy, writing at The Corner, takes Charles Krauthammer to task for making a broadly similar case. I recommend reading both arguments side by side. My sympathies are with Pethokoukis’s position, but McCarthy does an able job of making his case.

Recently, a friend of mine observed that conservatives can be divided into roughly three camps with regards to the idea of a federally-financed social safety net: (1) there are those who oppose it on normative grounds and who believe that political efforts should be geared towards rolling it back; (2) there are those who oppose it on normative grounds yet who recognize that its political entrenchment can’t be wished away, and so they believe that political efforts should be geared towards containing its size, restraining its worst excesses, improving it at the margins, and rolling it back when the opportunity presents itself; and (3) there are those who affirmatively believe that the federal government ought to play a role in financing the safety net, yet who are keen to make it as fiscally sustainable, work-friendly, and pro-growth as possible. My impression is that Andrew McCarthy falls in the first category while James Pethokoukis falls somewhere between the second and the third while Charles Krauthammer falls in the third. These differences matter relatively little when conservatives are united in opposition to some new legislative initiative. But they matter a good deal more when the right seeks to unite around a governing agenda, and when sluggish growth creates hard fiscal constraints and social strains.

(There are, to be sure, other cleavages dividing conservatives. One cross-cutting factor is the politics of recognition, which is commonly associated with the left, yet which shapes the outlook of both the left and the right in modern America. For example, I’d guess that I care more about about the future of the U.S. as a diverse but cohesive English-speaking cultural community than other people in the third camp, and this concern informs my views on the laws governing immigration, education, and the labor market, among other things.)

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

Most Popular


The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More