PILGRIM

WE were told at the beginning of the Reagan years that the burden for meeting social needs would shift more to “the private sector.” That was the wrong terminology, of course. It implies that “public” is synonymous with “governmental.” Mr. Reagan should have said that the burden would shift to public institutions that are non-governmental and voluntary. The Administration further confused the issue by its frequent boast that it was spending more on social programs than had ever been spent before. Thus the Reagan team, eager to prove that it had heart, accepted the criterion for caring propagated by its more determined opponents.

The idea that the voluntary sector could share more of the burden was derided by social-welfare agencies, and not least of all by the old-line churches. In fact, giving and volunteer work did rise when the word went out that the government was not going to do everything. Various studies have demonstrated the unsurprising truth that government spending tends to crowd out voluntary giving. Why should I feed the hungry, visit the sick, or house the homeless if I am assured that, if I don’t do it, the government will? Such issues related to voluntary and government action are explored in Charles Murray’s new book, In Pursuit: Of Happiness and Good Government (Simon & Schuster).

RJ

About the Author

Richard John Neuhaus

Featured Tags

WE were told at the beginning of the Reagan years that the burden for meeting social needs would shift more to “the private sector.” That was the wrong terminology, of course. It implies that “public” is synonymous with “governmental.” Mr. Reagan should have said that the burden would shift to public institutions that are non-governmental and voluntary. The Administration further confused the issue by its frequent boast that it was spending more on social programs than had ever been spent before. Thus the Reagan team, eager to prove that it had heart, accepted the criterion for caring propagated by its more determined opponents.

The idea that the voluntary sector could share more of the burden was derided by social-welfare agencies, and not least of all by the old-line churches. In fact, giving and volunteer work did rise when the word went out that the government was not going to do everything. Various studies have demonstrated the unsurprising truth that government spending tends to crowd out voluntary giving. Why should I feed the hungry, visit the sick, or house the homeless if I am assured that, if I don’t do it, the government will? Such issues related to voluntary and government action are explored in Charles Murray’s new book, In Pursuit: Of Happiness and Good Government (Simon & Schuster).