Defining and Defending the Welfare State

Welfare state liberalism, following from liberalism as a whole, is the greatest form of civil society that humanity has produced. While it is often subjected to criticism in the modern era, anything said against liberalism fails to come up with a preferable system of government. The following text will define the sort of liberalism I intend to defend as well as the criticisms it faces and why these criticisms do not bring any superior system to light.

Part One: What is Welfare State Liberalism?

In political science, classical "little L" liberalism is defined as the renaissance idea that took political thought from the ancient era and into the modern one. Thinkers like Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and especially John Locke are responsible for authoring several works that are traditionally thought to have driven modern political theory towards liberalism (or, in Machiavelli's case, at least towards a theory of politics where liberalism could exist). For the purposes of this work, Locke's Second Treatise¹ is especially important in understanding what motivates modern liberalism. Through Locke's work it will become possible to derive three core principles that represent this kind of classical liberalism: equality, individuality, and consent. These three principles are at the core of liberalism, and give way to welfare state liberalism - the ideology defended within this piece.

The first principle is equality. A core element of liberal theory, the concept of equality is taken both as a mandate for the government to maintain as well as a fundamental condition of all citizens. Consider the Declaration of Independence's² use of phrases like "all men are created equal." This concept is present through Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau; in short, it's a foundational component of liberalism upon which most of the other assertions rest. Today, equality between persons is an idea that even staunchly anti-liberal thinkers would not reject. For Locke, this equality follows to some degree from theology. His First Treatise of Government was written in response to Sir Robert Filmer who had previously articulated a theory of the divine right of kings. Locke criticized Filmer's theory on the grounds that God's lineage from Adam is impossible to trace and that all humans are equally equipped to reason and rule themselves. Because this reason is shared among everyone, so too is equality.

Individuality, the second principle, follows to some degree from equality. It will be defined as one's ability to act as an independent actor, not tied down by the pressures of others. Locke's theory of government as spelled out by his Second Treatise places a heavy emphasis on this kind of individuality. Because all people are equal, rights are awarded in even proportion among every person. This leads to a society driven by individuals. As opposed to a hierarchical organization, liberal society's starting point of equality lends itself to a capitalist, democratic society whose power is based on a foundation of allowing individual actors to exercise their rights. According to liberal theory, these rights tend to involve freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from physical harm by others, and the other freedoms of individuality that are commonly seen among liberal democracies.

The third principle is consent. In this context, consent is referred to with regards to how governments acquire their powers. In the Declaration of Independence, it's said that the powers of a just government flow from the people. This is a departure from traditional systems of government whose head of state (such as in monarchical regimes) may have been instituted according to a mandate from God or with respect to some other factor. Liberal systems are different. They tend to place a large emphasis on power coming from the people of the state. In this way, governments with liberal schemes are generally very democratic and much of their decision making rests upon the consultation of an engaged public.

These three principles can be mixed with one another in numerous novel combinations. Everyone from libertarians (such as Robert Nozick) to democratic socialists (such as John Rawls) have run with these three principles, or something similar, and created a system of government with varying qualities depending upon what they select for. What all of these systems have in common, given that they abide by the principles, is liberalism; what they do not share between them is the intricacies of each theorist's position. For the purposes of this project, the three principles will be rendered as a theory often referred to as welfare state liberalism.

Welfare state liberalism focuses on individuality in terms of freedoms and participation in the economy in much the same way as many other theories, and it follows the consent of the governed in a similar fashion. Really, the key difference separating welfare state liberalism from other liberal theories is its implementation of social programs. Socialized healthcare, socialized education, and higher income taxes on wealthy individuals paired with capitalist economic systems are a few of the hallmarks of countries who bear this political system. These countries are just as liberal as any other liberal democracy, just with a bit of a focus on wealth redistribution to serve the working and middle classes. In this sense, welfare state liberalism emphasizes equality while slightly diminishing individual freedom.

Part Two: Why is Welfare State Liberalism Criticized?

Some critics accuse liberal theory of leading to societies which have no room for universal moral values. Depending upon the theory, this criticism can indeed ring true to some extent. Within liberal schemes there's frequent disagreement on the morality of issues like abortion and assisted suicide (note that liberal countries do not broadly permit radical moral skepticism however, such as moral non-realism) and the liberal emphasis on individual rights is largely the culprit of this discrepancy. Both sides of these issues of morality struggle to reconcile their beliefs in individual freedom and universal truth. Liberalism, by focusing on individual freedom, can create issues when a group of people comes forward with what they believe to be the universal moral truth. If you believe in strong individual freedom, the shared moral landscape between individuals loses its foundation. If you believe in explicit obedience towards one set of proposed universal truths, you risk the loss of meaningful individualism.

Moreover, some theorists criticize liberalism for promoting the destruction of the community. This could come in the form of emaciated bonds within the family, minimal obligation felt mutually between citizens of the state, or just the broad worry that strong individual freedom tends towards too many opportunities for persons to put themselves ahead of the interest of the larger group. This is often seen as the cause for concerns over rampant corporatism or endlessly self-serving individuals among the wealthiest class.

I see these two criticisms leveled most consistently against liberal systems. In short, the two largest worries are to do with dissolution of shared morality and the toxic ramifications of strongly individual motivations. Let's examine each of these criticisms against the system of welfare state liberalism.

Part Three: How Do These Criticisms Fail?

Liberalism is commonly critiqued on the grounds that it leads to moral relativism, as has been established. The question still remains however: is this always detrimental? Of course, one cannot avoid a strong inclination that it may be. It seems almost a given that a mutually-shared moral framework is necessary to establish a functional state. However, putting aside the fact that this has never really happened (despite the bountiful number of successful countries throughout history), it seems that a further examination reveals that the intuitive desire for moral consistency is not a requirement for national stability. In fact, it takes little faith to imagine that citizens united together under a just rule of law with a strong socioeconomic safety net and the promise of upward mobility are very likely to broadly cooperate among themselves despite their differences. Are we really to imagine that a society of individuals with their basic needs met and their futures bright would go after each other over minor ethical disputes? This seems unrealistic. Use the United States itself as an example: during the youth of the baby boomers, a time of resplendent prosperity and promise, political disputes never rose to the level of moral disagreement, regardless of underlying differences. Contrast this with contemporary politics: mirroring the uncertain future, moral concerns are often front and center in politics. Political decision making becomes less about the virtue of your own party and more about the abhorrence of the opposite party.

It would seem that citizens who share broadly similar (but different nonetheless) moral frameworks, when they know their lives are trending in a predominantly positive direction, will find themselves in conflict with others far less than they would under a governmental scheme which leaves them uncertain about their outcomes as the future approaches. The welfare state liberal system is defined by its orientation towards the upward mobility and protection of the citizens. It can hardly be imagined that this would lead to moral turmoil and societal collapse.

Another common criticism involves liberalism's alleged tendency to break up family/community groups and promote individualism to excess. For one thing, the government outlined here ensures a basic amount of prosperity for all individuals (through socialized programs which amount to a "safety net" for all to share), meaning that even if communal groups were to somehow disintegrate, the individuals within them would theoretically emerge relatively comfortable and safe. Of course, this does nothing to quell the monumental concern of societal damage following these groups ceasing to exist - what's stopping it from happening in the first place? It seems that the answer to this is similar to the answer to the first concern. Is there really a motivation to worry about family units vanishing under the stress of individual greed and freedom when the citizens are protected by their government and consistently rewarded for their hard work? All the accusations of liberalism's tendency to destroy communities are so compelling and worrisome that they beg for a real-world example, yet none are found in history. Alternatively, the contemporary states which have adopted a welfare state system are hubs of industry, culture, and among the happiest on the globe. They show no signs of the erosion of social structures, nor do their family units vanish under the weight of individual freedom. Indeed, successful individuals do not universally destroy their communities.

Part Four: Conclusion

The goal of this article has been to argue for a political philosophy termed welfare state liberalism. Like any liberal scheme, this system places great importance on the three principles of equality, individuality, and consent. Welfare state liberalism pairs the three principles alongside a governmental motivation to support the lower and middle classes - in doing this, many of the classical worries of liberalism are subverted. In a society with appropriate wealth redistribution (and therefore a social safety net), it seems that moral differences will not cause societal damage and that communities will not find themselves suffocated by excessive individualism. Instead, citizens will share mutual upward mobility and legitimate, meaningful protection from their government.