Social Policy Debates:
Key State Failings
Social Policy Debates: Key State Failings
Joseph Casale
PLCY 700: Foundations of Statesmanship and Public Policy
August 2, 2020
2
Introduction
In today’s government and political environment, there are significant debates abounding.
Partisan politics has taken a front seat, with people choosing their teams and lining up to support
one side or the other. Nevertheless, it is easier than ever to see the major social policy debates
and their foundations, even if the political system is not well-designed for resolving those
conflicts. Ultimately there have been many scholars who have critiqued the role of the State and
the ineffectiveness of government systems in fixing the problems facing the US during the last
few decades. One social issue at the heart of American policy debates is the question of the poor.
What responsibility does society have to people who are living in poverty? More distinctly, what
job does the State play in making sense of that and attempting to mitigate the circumstance?
Charles Murray was among the thinkers to criticize the role of the State, calling many of its
policies a failure during this period.1 As Murray pointed out, the policies and programs put in
place during the 1960s and 1970s may have had good intentions, but they have provided
incentives for individuals to not work, which has further exacerbated the issues.2 Thus, at the
core of the American social policy debate is not only a question about the moral responsibility
that the country has to help with these outcomes and opportunities, but also the proper role of
government in fixing those problems. Democrats and Republicans are obviously split on many of
these questions, with Democrats tending to favor a more active government that seeks active
solutions, while Republicans have been in favor of a hands-off government arrangement,
allowing charities, churches, and so forth to fix the issues. Likewise, two competing visions of
how the government should interact with the economy must be explored in this regard. On the
1 Murray, Charles. Losing ground: American social policy, 1950-1980. Basic books, 2008.
2 Prideaux, Simon John. "The welfare politics of Charles Murray are alive and well in the
UK." International Journal of Social Welfare 19, no. 3 (2010): 293-302.
3
Left side of the spectrum, one will find political leanings that support more intervention in the
lives of the poor through programs. The Right side of the spectrum views this as its own
pernicious evil. The Bible has much to say about the role of the State. Taking the Hebrew
government as the model for Biblical statesmanship, one can apply a de-centralized, fragmented,
and localized government that is there to rule justly, but is not to be the most powerful force in
life. Taking this into account, one can begin to understand the policy debates and their
ideological roots today.
At the core of the social policy debates today is a delineation of the role of government in
fixing problems. Generally speaking, Democrats have, since the times of Franklin Roosevelt,
favored a large, strong federal government that is active in trying to shape outcomes and is also
there to enforce federal law when states are not willing to play fair with people. Liberals who
come from this school of thought have tended to look with skepticism on the idea of de-
centralized government and the rights of states. Some of this is because the call of “states’ rights”
was first echoed during the Civil Rights Movement, as many states in the old Confederacy
wanted strongly to push back against encroaching integration. They argued that it was their right
to make their own laws about where black people could and could not eat, and where those
children could go to school. The argument from the other side was that regardless of what a
state’s laws may say on the books, the US Constitution provides the right of people to equal
protection. This means that disparate or unfair treatment of people on the basis of race is quite
literally a violation of the Constitution, triggering the right of the federal government to come in
and enforce the law as it saw fit. Thus, there is an ideological favoring among liberals for a
strong federal government, since this has traditionally been used to combat states that have taken
advantage of federalism. One might even suggest it goes back as far as the Civil War, when the
4
states of the then-Confederacy decided to break free from the Union because they wanted to be
free to make their own rules on slavery. These ideological foundations have very well stuck with
the two sides.
Importantly, on the more conservative side of the spectrum, there is a favoring of a
weaker federal government, with the slack picked up by local and state governments. While the
Left would suggest that conservatives seek state power so they can push back against federal
protections for minority and disaffected groups, one must go deeper to understand what is
happening there. For instance, one must note the preference for localized solutions. America has
often been called the laboratory of democracy. The reason for this moniker comes from the idea
that every state should have the ability to figure out its own problem locally and try solutions that
make sense for the state. This is important in America, of course, because the country is so
different culturally, geographically, and so forth from place to place. What will need to work in
Maryland will scarcely stand a chance in Wyoming. What Texans will accept will be much
different from what people in Seattle will accept. And, likewise, when solutions are tried out on a
local level, with different states disagreeing on the proper approach to some big problem, one can
figure out which solution works best. For instance, Utah had an innovative approach to
homelessness that served as the model for many states. There, they decided to try out sticking
homeless people in actual homes and providing them with social workers and work support.
They had success with this model. Thus, some other states and cities began looking at this and
figuring out whether the model could be applied to solve their issues. Conservatives have long
believed that the best way to solve problems is not to try and apply a one-size-fits-all approach
from on high, but instead to take a look at things from a more local perspective to get the right
answer.
5
In addition to that, many on the Right have long been skeptical of centralized power
because they inherently view bigger government in a negative way. Republicans have viewed the
federal government to be full of grift and corruption, so they obviously would not want to give
more power to its functions. It is easy to see how this kind of sentiment could arise. From the
traditional Republicans to the modern conservatives who support Donald Trump, one of the chief
calling cards has been about “career politicians” in Washington. Trump found a way to market
this more effectively, nicknaming Washington “The Swamp” and referring to those who fill the
swamp as critters. The people who support this movement saw this for what it was—a callout of
a culture where people are able to enrich themselves just by being a part of the government
machine rather than actually producing anything. Thus, the Republican side has skepticism about
both the ability of government to provide solutions and the integrity of the people on the inside,
who may not have the best intentions whenever they are attempting these measures.
At the same time, Democrats have traditionally seen a large federal government as the
most efficient way to both regulate potentially negative conduct from within the economy or to
promote positive behavior among its individuals. Democrats take the first example back from the
New Deal, when Roosevelt proposed wide and sweeping programs designed to bring the
company out of the Great Depression. They viewed these programs, which included the federal
government spending a lot of money to create a new safety net and put people to work, as one of
the core functions of government. This continued into the next era when Kennedy and Johnson
had a “War on Poverty.” Together, these programs created things like Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, Food Stamps, and several other elements of what has been called the “welfare state.”
Democrats look fondly on these programs as an example of what government can do and be.
Specifically, the idea is that government is better at bringing people together for solutions that
6
would not be possible without this collective effort. This has continued today, as Democrats are
pushing for additional government intervention in things like the economy, healthcare, and much
more.
Thus, with this background in mind, one can come to understand some of the central
social policy debates of this day. Democrats are still advocating for an expansion of government-
provided healthcare. The Affordable Care Act was seen as the first step, as Barack Obama
needed people to get comfortable with the idea of government being involved in health.3 This
expanded Medicaid in many places and placed some rules on what insurers could do.4 It created
exchanges and allowed for people to receive subsidies if they could not get insurance otherwise.5
The goal was to cut down on the number of people in America who lack insurance and have to
rely on the emergency room for their care. Today, Democrats are pushing for Medicare for All.6
They believe that having insurance companies involved in the medical world just makes things
worse and more expensive.7 They point to the fact that people who are going to the emergency
room for a broken arm often end up with bills that can break their finances into many pieces.
They argue about the soaring prices of drugs that people will need to save their lives. The root of
this problem is encapsulated in the pharmaceutical companies that make a lot of money and the
insurance companies that grift extremely hard. Democrats believe that having the government
3 Griffith, Kevin, Leigh Evans, and Jacob Bor. "The Affordable Care Act reduced socioeconomic
disparities in health care access." Health Affairs 36, no. 8 (2017): 1503-1510.
4 Frean, Molly, Jonathan Gruber, and Benjamin D. Sommers. "Premium subsidies, the mandate, and
Medicaid expansion: Coverage effects of the Affordable Care Act." Journal of Health Economics 53 (2017): 72-86.
5 Chen, Jie, Arturo Vargas-Bustamante, Karoline Mortensen, and Alexander N. Ortega. "Racial and ethnic
disparities in health care access and utilization under the Affordable Care Act." Medical care 54, no. 2 (2016): 140.
6 Schulman, Kevin A., and Arnold Milstein. "The implications of “Medicare for All” for US
hospitals." JAMA 321, no. 17 (2019): 1661-1662.
7 Song, Zirui. "The pricing of care under Medicare for all: Implications and policy choices." Jama 322, no.
5 (2019): 395-397.
7
facilitate such a program will make things cheaper, will ensure fairness in the system between the
rich and the poor, and will meet the humanitarian goals that they are always after. Still, this is a
major policy battle, and there are people on the other side who do not believe the Democratic
approach is the best one to take.
Republicans have been opposed to the imposition of more government involvement in
healthcare, though some have come around on the idea of Medicare for All over the last few
years. The argument from this side of the political spectrum has been about doctor quality and
the lack of access.8 There has been an agreement that something must be done to make sure
people can get the care they need, having the government in control of the system has been
questioned for many reasons. The first of those reasons has to do with waiting periods.
Republicans have pointed to some countries that have so-called “socialized medicine.” They
point out that in these countries, there is a demanding situation because even though care is
technically “free,” people often must wait months for the care they need. Many in this camp
argue that it is not fair to take from someone an insurance coverage they like to replace it with
one that is inferior. This thus produces a middle ground—the public option, which adds
government as a competitor in an otherwise free, competitive market.9
Republicans have also argued that pushing for government intervention in this regard is
too expensive. One of the chief talking points for Republicans often centers on the prohibitive
costs of running a massive federal government with so many programs. Of course, the national
debt in the US is more than $20 trillion now. Often, the US spends more than it takes in, leading
to a deficit that just continues to grow. Republicans have often parroted the belief that if the
8 Johnson, Micah, Sanjay Kishore, and Donald M. Berwick. "Medicare For All: An Analysis Of Key Policy
Issues: A discussion of design issues and options raised by pending Medicare for All legislation and
proposals." Health Affairs 39, no. 1 (2020): 133-141.
9 Oberlander, Jonathan. "Navigating the shifting terrain of US health care reform—Medicare for all, single
payer, and the public option." The Milbank Quarterly 97, no. 4 (2019).
8
country provides this kind of medical service to all, it will make it difficult for the country to
sustain the debt. While there are some that point out that Republicans tend to raise the deficit just
as much, one cannot argue that Republicans have been ideologically against government
spending. Part of that is because Republicans have long been defenders of people with wealth.
Medicare for All is, in many ways, a program that would transfer lots of wealth from one party to
the next. It would transfer money from rich people to poor people through a government taxation
program that would be needed to sustain this kind of program. Republicans have been
ideologically opposed to this just as Republicans are often opposed to programs that would
increase the tax burden on the rich.
Another major debate has centered on what to do about student loan burdens among
students who are just coming out of college and graduate school.10 The cost of these institutions
has gone way up, and just getting out of college or even graduate school is no longer a guarantee
of success. Many students are getting out with six figures worth of debt, only to find that they
must take jobs that pay little.11 They also live in cities that are increasingly expensive. What they
are finding is that it is hard to make ends meet, and more than that, they lack the ability to save
for the future, too. Thus, some have suggested that the government should intervene to clear this
up so that young people are able to get out from under debt. Democrats have pushed for various
proposals. Some have been more aggressive, as with the Sanders plan to eliminate all student
debt overnight. Otherwise have advocated for eliminating some student loan debt to lighten the
burden for people who are working hard. These suggestions all center on the idea of fairness and
on the practical effect it would have on the economy. Economics plays a significant role in these
10 Huffman, Anna E. "Forgive and Forget: An Analysis of Student Loan Forgiveness Plans." NC Banking
Inst. 24 (2020): 449.
11 Dynan, Karen. "Rising student loan burdens and what to do about them." Business Economics 55, no. 3
(2020): 129-133
9
issues, as some believe it makes good sense to have a generation of young consumers who can
afford to buy homes, cars, and so forth.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have argued that it does not make sense to cancel this
debt. Citing arguments about fairness and about the ways in which the world must run,
conservatives have argued that providing loan forgiveness for people now is unfair to those who
just paid off their student loan debt. Imagine, for instance, a person who works extremely hard
and makes his monthly payments. He gets done paying off his student loan debt, and a moment
later, it is cancelled for all that come after him. In the conservative argument, this is not fair, and
it just constitutes a handout to a generation of people that made the choice to take on the risk and
must now pay the consequences. Likewise, the arguments mentioned above about the role of
government spending also play into this. Conservatives have looked to keep spending down,
especially on things like this, and they have opposed these programs considering that goal.
In addition, one would be remiss if one did not mention the social policy debate today
revolving around race and identity. This has been heavily influenced by high-profile police-
involved killings, where African American men have been harmed in ways that have made the
news. The movement “Black Lives Matter” is very much at the front of the political debate
today, with partisan lines being drawn even around that issue.12 Democrats have pushed for more
inclusion of race-based factors.13 For instance, they have argued for things like affirmative
action. They have argued that there should be forced diversity in institutions, with jobs and
places in college being reserved for minority candidates. Likewise, there has even been a push on
the Left of late to “abolish the police,” which can mean many things. Some have suggested this
12 Szetela, Adam. "Black Lives Matter at five: limits and possibilities." Ethnic and Racial Studies 43, no. 8
(2020): 1358-1383.
13 Rojas, Fabio. "Moving beyond the rhetoric: a comment on Szetela’s critique of the Black Lives Matter
movement." Ethnic and Racial Studies 43, no. 8 (2020): 1407-1413.
10
means to dismantle police forces in favor of something less sinister. Some have argued this just
means to divert some funding into the kinds of programs that keep people from becoming
involved with police in the first place. At the very least, the Left has argued for a heightened race
consciousness, where people of color have their concerns and voices amplified, often at the
expense of white voices, which are seen as coming from a place of “privilege.”14
The Right’s opposition to these movements is complex and tricky. One might point to
Donald Trump and some of the racist rhetoric that he spews on television and on Twitter. They
might use this to suggest that any resistance on the part of Republicans is just based in bald, flat
racism. However, this would be misunderstanding the situation. Conservative values, at their
very core, come from the idea that there should be law and order and strong institutions.
Likewise, conservatives are genuinely concerned with the idea of personal responsibility and
property rights. If a person works hard and owns something, then he or she should be able to
keep it. The idea of getting rid of the police or with elevating people because of race does not
jive with the concept of property accumulation. Thus, there is a complicated relationship between
the Right and the police state. One might think that the Right, since it is skeptical of centralized
power, would want more accountability for police. While this has tended to be true in some
contexts, it also breaks down on demographic lines. The Left has argued for a re-imagining of
police forces so that they will be less likely to arrest and charge people of color. Often, this has
led to an acceptance of police force being used against whites, and the system being used against
“privileged” offenders. On the other side of the spectrum, a major part of the argument has been
for a strong police state that will protect scenic suburbs and property from those who may want
to do it harm. Protests, riots, and so forth in American cities in response to the social upheaval of
14 Polleck, Jody, and Tashema Spence-Davis. "Centering# BlackLivesMatter to confront injustice, inspire
advocacy, and develop literacies." English Journal 109, no. 4 (2020): 87-94.
11
2020 has magnified the fears of some that without police to serve this role, the US can slip into
anarchy.15 At its core, the Republican Party right now is concerned with the concept of
lawlessness and the threat this poses to society at large. The Left has tended to invite this in part
because the Left has a newfound obsession with social change.
Finally, a social issue is the role of the government in fixing poverty. Should the
government provide jobs and food stamps and welfare for people who are struggling? Should
they be given free school and other benefits? The Left has argued for an expansion of the social
safety net and has been fiercely protective of various parts of that net. The Right, on the other
hand, has long pushed to get government out of the business of supporting people. The Right has
tended to take an approach that suggests people need to work for what they get, and if they are
not being given incentives to work, then the system is bound to break down. According to those
on the Right, the approach from the Left simply traps people in poverty. It gives them enough to
get by, putting them in government housing, government food, and on government support until
the end of time. Republicans would argue that this keeps people dependent on government, and
thus, dependent on Democrats. They would also argue that the better approach is to free people
from this kind of oppression, thinking that if they are given the tools they need to succeed, they
may be able to do so without having to have things handed to them.
Charles Murray wrote at length about this in his criticisms of the role of the State in the
US in the Kennedy and Johnson years. Murray made a key observation. He noted that the
number of people living in poverty dropped steadily until the late 1960s. However, when this
time rolled around, government began to meddle and passed programs that would provide people
with money and food just to stay home. In the view of Murray and those who shared his mindset,
15 Updegrove, Alexander H., Maisha N. Cooper, Erin A. Orrick, and Alex R. Piquero. "Red states and
Black lives: Applying the racial threat hypothesis to the Black Lives Matter movement." Justice Quarterly 37, no. 1
(2020): 85-108.
12
why would people work whenever they can get the same amount of money just by sitting at
home? His understanding of human motivation said that it would be impossible to expect these
low-income workers to continue going to do the tiring, difficult work that they are often doing if
they were going to get a check for the same amount of money anyway. Thus, he noted, people
were being pushed out of the workforce and onto the government payroll. They got their
provisions each month, and the breakdown in that situation was apparent. As noted above, if a
person is only receiving government money and does not have a job, then they have no hope of a
promotion of personal betterment. They are just in a cycle or a trap where it is understood that
they are doing all they can, and nothing will be better. This, Murray said, was the pernicious
poverty cycle that would lead to generations of people never being able to generate wealth or
move up the social ladder.
He argued accordingly that when the State gets involved and tries to manipulate
outcomes in this way, only dreadful things will follow. The State is not able to ensure proper
incentives and motivations when it acts in this way. Instead, it finds itself in a position where it is
the constant provider for millions of people. This can become expensive for the government, of
course, and the government then needs to raise taxes on working people just to pay people who
are not working. Thus, the social fabric can even become frayed in a place where this goes on for
too long. People eventually get offended by the unfairness in a system of this manner. If they are
going to work and breaking their back to feed their families, then why can the person on the
other side of the tracks not do it? Why is it fair for that person to benefit from tax money from
the person who is working? These are fairness and justice questions that must be settled out.
Murray’s criticisms strike at the heart of one of the things that has been wrong with how
the current welfare state programs have been set up. While they have the right idea—giving
13
people what they need in order to survive—they also set up those people in a system where they
do not have the resources to break free.16 Murray suggested that the problem laid right at the feet
of the State and government itself. The reason government was no good at fixing this problem,
he argued, was obvious. It is because government itself as an ineffective beast trying to solve
problems that were better left to individuals and the market itself. Human motivation, he
believed, would end up sorting itself out, and people were much more likely to do right by
themselves if they had to do so in order to survive.17 Short of this, those individuals would
simply find themselves reliant on government in ways that may have been unintended but were
not positive over the long run.18
In looking at a Biblical model of governance and statehood, one might first start by
considering the Hebrew civil government that was set up. The Bible does not provide too many
details that can be used to decide what specifically must be done on policy. However, the general
fundamentals of this approach can be a guide for what government should be. The Hebrew
model saw government as being highly localized. People should be elected or selected, but not in
the way it happens in the US. People should elect their neighbors. These should be people they
know and trust, and those people should be held accountable for their actions. The Hebrew
model suggest strongly that the most concentrated power should not be held in the hands of a
single government entity, but should instead be spread in a localized manner that helps to provide
people with the personalized solutions they need.
16 Murray, Charles. In our hands: A plan to replace the welfare state. Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.
17 Mattison, Edward. "Stop Making Sense: Charles Murray and the Reagan Perspective on Social Welfare
Policy and the Poor." Yale L. & Pol'Y Rev. 4 (1985): 90.
18 O'Connor, Brendon. "The intellectual origins of ‘welfare dependency’." Australian Journal of Social
Issues 36, no. 3 (2001): 221-236.
14
Likewise, the Biblical model always suggests that government should bend to the will of
God and the people who run it should recognize that they are subordinate to God.19 This is
obviously difficult in a system in America where religion is not allowed to play an official or
active part in government.20 However, there are still some lessons that can be learned from this.
Namely, it teaches that government should not be the most powerful force in a society. Rather,
there are more important ideas and more important values to bring to bear. Likewise, it suggests
strongly that human beings should be able to make their own decisions and come to their own
conclusions according to their values. This would push for a State system where the private
market is always better able to provide solutions rather than having the government do it . It
would support Murray’s conclusion that government programs trying to get people out of
poverty are better left in the trash bin in favor of alternative ideas.
At the end of the day, today’s social problems are complicated in nature. They bring to
bear hundreds of years of political history and lots of inequity in America. Still, they can be
fairly understood in their context. Government has at times been strong in the US and tried to
solve problems, but for all its trying, it has failed to solve the large-scale problems facing the
nation.
Reference List
Chen, Jie, Arturo Vargas-Bustamante, Karoline Mortensen, and Alexander N. Ortega. "Racial and
ethnic disparities in health care access and utilization under the Affordable Care
Act." Medical care 54, no. 2 (2016): 140.
19 Nendza, James. "Thomas More on Statesmanship." The Review of Politics 60, no. 2 (1998): 385-388.
20 Wallace, Henry A. Statesmanship and religion. Pickle Partners Publishing, 2020.
15
Dynan, Karen. "Rising student loan burdens and what to do about them." Business
Economics 55, no. 3 (2020): 129-133.
Frean, Molly, Jonathan Gruber, and Benjamin D. Sommers. "Premium subsidies, the mandate,
and Medicaid expansion: Coverage effects of the Affordable Care Act." Journal of Health
Economics 53 (2017): 72-86.
Griffith, Kevin, Leigh Evans, and Jacob Bor. "The Affordable Care Act reduced socioeconomic
disparities in health care access." Health Affairs 36, no. 8 (2017): 1503-1510.
Huffman, Anna E. "Forgive and Forget: An Analysis of Student Loan Forgiveness Plans." NC
Banking Inst. 24 (2020): 449.
Johnson, Micah, Sanjay Kishore, and Donald M. Berwick. "Medicare For All: An Analysis Of
Key Policy Issues: A discussion of design issues and options raised by pending Medicare
for All legislation and proposals." Health Affairs 39, no. 1 (2020): 133-141.
Mattison, Edward. "Stop Making Sense: Charles Murray and the Reagan Perspective on Social
Welfare Policy and the Poor." Yale L. & Pol'Y Rev. 4 (1985): 90.
Murray, Charles. In our hands: A plan to replace the welfare state. Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.
Murray, Charles. Losing ground: American social policy, 1950-1980. Basic books, 2008.
Nendza, James. "Thomas More on Statesmanship." The Review of Politics 60, no. 2 (1998): 385-
388.
Oberlander, Jonathan. "Navigating the shifting terrain of US health care reform—Medicare for
all, single payer, and the public option." The Milbank Quarterly 97, no. 4 (2019).
O'Connor, Brendon. "The intellectual origins of ‘welfare dependency’." Australian Journal of
Social Issues 36, no. 3 (2001): 221-236.
Polleck, Jody, and Tashema Spence-Davis. "Centering# BlackLivesMatter to confront injustice,
inspire advocacy, and develop literacies." English Journal 109, no. 4 (2020): 87-94.
Prideaux, Simon John. "The welfare politics of Charles Murray are alive and well in the
UK." International Journal of Social Welfare 19, no. 3 (2010): 293-302.
Rojas, Fabio. "Moving beyond the rhetoric: a comment on Szetela’s critique of the Black Lives
Matter movement." Ethnic and Racial Studies 43, no. 8 (2020): 1407-1413.
Schulman, Kevin A., and Arnold Milstein. "The implications of “Medicare for All” for US
hospitals." JAMA 321, no. 17 (2019): 1661-1662.
16
Song, Zirui. "The pricing of care under Medicare for all: Implications and policy
choices." Jama 322, no. 5 (2019): 395-397.
Szetela, Adam. "Black Lives Matter at five: limits and possibilities." Ethnic and Racial
Studies 43, no. 8 (2020): 1358-1383.
Updegrove, Alexander H., Maisha N. Cooper, Erin A. Orrick, and Alex R. Piquero. "Red states
and Black lives: Applying the racial threat hypothesis to the Black Lives Matter
movement." Justice Quarterly 37, no. 1 (2020): 85-108.
Wallace, Henry A. Statesmanship and religion. Pickle Partners Publishing, 2020.
