Paradoxum

The welfare state: how can it be undone? Conservatives argue that the welfare state, rather than eliminating poverty, “condemn[s] the poor to perpetual dependency,” as economist Herbert Scholssberg put it. Liberals vehemently contest this. Thus, economists, politicians, professors, and intellectuals go back forth on the value of the welfare state. Herein lies the problem: the debate behind the welfare state (the debate of ideas, the principle of it) is taking place far above the heads of the actual poor.

I shall assume (foolish as it may be, given my audience I feel free to do so) that the welfare state is inherently bad for the poor and the economy as a whole. Even if the intellectual left were brought to this understanding, how much could be accomplished? How is this parasite on our society removed? It seems as though it has penetrated too deep into our society and wrapped itself around too many vital organs to be just yanked out by a consensus among politicians and voters.

We go to the poor. We get them out in the job market and off their dependency on the state. It is with the poor that the battle over the welfare state needs to be fought. It would go a long way in policy change if the people who the liberals think need government money say, “No thanks.” I recognize this seems improbable and wishful thinking, but we need not back down from positive change simply because it is going to be tough goings. There are egregious errors and wrongs in our society that will take drastic measures to remedy. The welfare state is one of these.

Crucial in this will be the involvement of the church. Churches need to stop simply welcoming the poor or the homeless, but rather seek them out and get them back on their feet. It is often the first question one asks when the removal of welfare is mentioned: but what will the dependents do? In that transition time the church’s outreach and generosity will be paramount.

Let’s get practical. What can be done?

Prometheus told me of a lecture he recently heard by a Vietnam war veteran. This man said that the war and its level of support from home were completely misrepresented by the media at the time, and continue to be misrepresented. (Perhaps Prometheus will post on this subject.) Lies were propagated to meet political ends then, and the lies continue now.

I am fearful the same will happen with the Iraq war, and our engagements in Afghanistan. I am certain the American public knows anything BUT what has and what continues to go on in these countries. We’re being lied to now, and our children will be lied to in the textbooks.

Something must be done. I wish this Vietnam war veteran would write the true history of the war – and include what a shame the mainstream media is. I hope someone is gathering their facts now, and will write the true story of the Iraq war.

How can progress be made in politics? How can the truth be promoted? Start with education. We need conservative textbook writers.

I am thankful for the blogosphere and the Internet. People are no longer forced to gather all their news from the mainstream media. Newspaper sales continue to fall. Other than for nostalgic purposes, I am not sad to see them go. Let the people read their news and their opinions in a forum where information is freely acquired and freely presented, without respect to the editor’n'chief’s particular political/religious slant.

The other side of this coin is the pitfalls of an Internet where any wacko can make a website. Thus, do you research. Read around. Don’t believe everything you read. If there is one thing I’ve found to be true in using the Internet for research, it’s that you can find arguments and ‘research’ supporting any and every opinion.

I don’t mean to be cliche, but make your voice heard. Don’t just shake your head at the liberal dominance in education and news – do something about it. Start a blog. Research, even just to set straight the guys around the water cooler. Heck, write a textbook.

I seek your input: as a legislator, is one to act (in regards to the formation/repealing of laws) in accordance with what one believes to be best for his constituency, or in accordance with the majority view (protecting the minority, of course) of that constituency? In other words, should a legislator act strictly as a representative, or should he act in the best interest of his constituency (as he sees it)?

Take the example of abortion. Personally, my course of action in this matter is clear regardless of my constituency’s view on the matter. But, is this my role in government? Or, are legislators to actively represent those who voted for them, who knew very well his stance on abortion, for instance, and thus the two options align.

I am interested in your views on the matter.