More big-government welfare, less freedom
Fear of enabling "big government" is the usual conservative objection to federal spending for the public good, especially where the poor are concerned. Conservatives typically claim that they don't object to poor people receiving assistance; they just think government ought not be the agent of delivery, as this would represent an unconscionable expansion of state power.
Why, then, do conservatives tend to be so enthusiastic about making welfare programs as invasive and hegemonic as possible?
Recently, I argued that Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Ivanka Trump's paid parental leave plan, which would require new parents to borrow from their own Social Security and retire later than they otherwise would have, penalizes parents for their decision to have children. Not surprisingly, conservatives disagreed with my analysis. On Twitter, Rubio himself argued that, however flawed, his plan is still better than the status quo; and at National Review, writer Alexandra DeSanctis claimed that what bothered her about my argument was "its suggestion that being authentically pro- family and pro-children requires embracing one specific — and extreme — model of government action." DeSanctis argued that although she opposes "an everexpansive welfare state," she is nonetheless thoroughly pro- family. The argument was about means, in other words, not ends. Similar pieces about the idea from Heritage, the Federalist, Townhall and the American Enterprise Institute all shared this point of view.
And yet, the expansion of state power in the context of welfare programs is often the direct result of conservative legislation, not simply a byproduct of welfare programs them- selves. This is especially the case when it comes to restrictions of personal freedoms.
Consider the Rubio-Trump plan, for instance. What's more invasive: Receiving a check from the state for the duration of your parental leave and then moving on with life, or receiving a check from the state for the duration of your parental leave and then having your date of retirement delayed by the state based on the number of children you had and the time you took off with each? The Rubio-Trump plan clearly involves more monitoring of one's life, more tabulating of one's deeds, more placing strictures on one's decisions than does the former.
Similar examples abound. President Donald Trump has proposed replacing SNAP benefits, also known as food stamps, with something called an "America's Harvest Box." ( The nation's harvest apparently consists of peanut butter, pasta, cereal, canned fruits and vegetables, and shelf-stable milk.) Swapping SNAP benefits for a box of rations would of course mean vastly reducing the choices of benefit recipients. Those with special dietary needs, with more infants in the house than children and adults, with allergies or religious commitments, would simply be out of luck. Again, a check in the mail would accomplish more with less intrusion on personal freedom.
The same is true of drug testing for welfare, a proven waste of time and money that nonetheless seems still to appeal to Republicans; and of placing work requirements on certain benefits (health care, in the latest instance), which necessitates that recipients provide state authorities with the daily details of their lives — and potentially that they shape their family and childcare decisions around state whims.
I have no certainty into what may motivate conservatives to expand the state's purview of control when it comes to welfare; I assume that, as usual, different things motivate different actors, and most people have a mixture of motivations at any rate. Some may want to discipline and punish the poor, some to sabotage good programs with bad-faith adjustments, some to show allegiance to billionaire donors who couldn't care less about the common good. Others may honestly believe the poor are in need of strict paternalism. The conversation often ends with allegations of hypocrisy, which can be satisfying and justified but don't advance the issue very far.
What I can say is that welfare does not have to be invasive, patronizing, hegemonic or oppressive. The same people who warn you that welfare is all those things are the ones who make it so by attaching intrusive rules to aid programs. In countries around the world, many of which match the United States in terms of development, taking time off to be with your baby doesn't mean delaying retirement; receiving health care doesn't mean leaving underage, elderly or disabled family members so you can meet minimum work requirements; and receiving assistance with food costs doesn't mean eating government- assigned peanut butter out of a standard-issue box.
So, when you see aspects of welfare programs that are oppressive and humiliating, keep in mind that legislators have chosen to make them that way; there is no law of nature requiring that they be such. When conservative legislators say they want to free people from the degrading power of an everexpanding welfare regime, the provisions and privations they are referring to are, in large part, of their own making. It is possible to put together programs that genuinely promote the common good. It is critical that we not allow ourselves to be convinced otherwise. Elizabeth Bruenig is an opinion columnist at The Washington Post.