Conservatives are firmly opposed to a progressive activist government. They argue that it is unfair to those who have resources taken from people who are successful and giving them to people who are not. They claim that government support is damaging to the recipients it is supposed to help and that, because it is administered by government and not subject to market forces, it is inherently wasteful and corrupt.
Conservatives argue that the only fair and reasonable way to determine what share of resources people deserve is a free, unfettered market rewarding those who make meritorious contributions and denying those who do not. Governmental attempts to redistribute resources is regarded as theft by coercion. They maintain that job creation is a far more effective way to reduce poverty than handouts, and monies captured by government through taxing decreases funds that could have been invested to create new jobs. Conservatives further argue that receiving unearned income is injurious to the very people it pretends to help, dis-empowering them by creating a culture of dependency and interfering with the market forces that would otherwise motivate recipients toward making valuable contributions.
Conservatives believe that those in government who support redistributive efforts do so cynically, fully aware of its destructive effects, while shrewdly appreciating how presiding over such policies expand their power.
Advocates of activist government rarely respond to these points effectively. Firstly, there is no free market possible without strong government[1]. And the claim that redistributive policies are legalized theft is nonsense.
Since the dawn of civilization, how wealth, access to resources, and income is distributed has been an ongoing compromise, constantly being renegotiated. Throughout history nobles, kings, clergy, proprietors, innovators, peasants, and workers, have struggled to get what they considered their deserved share of society’s resources. Sometimes these struggles would result in a drastic restructuring of society, more frequently, however, their impact would involve incremental change. Reconsidering how well elites are compensated is consistent with this long historical process.
The suggestion that lower taxes result in greater job creation is not borne out by the evidence. Instead of resulting in more job creation corporate tax cuts often fuel stock buy backs benefiting mostly the wealthy. For example, in 2017 a large cut in corporate taxes triggered a significant increase in stock buybacks.[2]
The claim that redistributive policies are injurious to recipients is also without basis. Considerable evidence indicates that social welfare programs such as public assistance, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid have helped cut the poverty rate in half over the past 50 years[3]. How effective such programs are at helping recipients more satisfyingly participate in middle class life is, however, another matter. Although originally conceived of as a “war on poverty” it seems doubtful that policy makers ever intended to uplift those trapped in a permanent underclass — a class existing in the lowest possible position, below the working class. In a capitalist society having such a marginal group serves as a powerful reminder to even the lowest paid workers that their circumstances could be worse.
If the goal of social welfare programs were to eliminate poverty, it would require far more than medical care and monthly subsistence payments. A true “war on poverty” would require the kind of massive, sustained, and multifaceted effort we associate with actual war. It would have to include effective day care specifically geared to compensate for disadvantage such as Head Start, and services such as drug treatment, job training, and counseling.
Insufficient financial aid without psychological and social support does fail to pull people out of poverty. It is ironic that those who have most vigorously fought against adequately funding social welfare programs are usually the first to declare those insufficiently funded programs as failures needing to be terminated.
[1] See essay Capitalism Requires Government at https://governmentisgood.com/articles.php@aid=13&print=1#:~:text=Global%20capitalism%20would%20be%20impossible,free%20of%20any%20political%20framework.
[2] According to a report by the Center for American Progress, U.S. companies announced nearly $1 trillion in stock buybacks in 2018, a record high.
[3] See report Economic Security Programs Cut Poverty Nearly in Half Over Last 50 Years – at https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/economic-security-programs-cut-poverty-nearly-in-half-over-last-50