There is an ongoing debate as to what the government's role should be in resolving the current economic crisis. This is part of a larger debate that asks what the role of government is in our society.
The conservative viewpoint is that government should secure the borders, protect private property rights and get out of the way. The liberal view is that government should take a larger role.
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States attempts to address this issue. To ""secure the blessings of liberty"" is one of the purposes. Another is to ""promote the general welfare."" At a time when national unemployment is rushing toward 10 percent and the economy is almost visibly shrinking, perhaps a bit of promoting the general welfare is needed.
But wait, is that socialism? And isn't socialism bad? I guess that depends on what we're talking about. President Obama recently signed a large economic stimulus package into law, which is essentially a large volume of cash flowing from the federal government out to the states and municipalities.
Is this socialism? If it was continued forever it would be, but as an emergency measure taken to stimulate a stagnant economy, we can put it under the rubric of promoting the general welfare.
Obama also has made some other proposals, including making health care available to the 40 million or so Americans who don't have it. Socialism, or promoting the general welfare? There is a German word, bildung, that has no English equivalent. It means each citizen has some obligation to the society he belongs to, in addition to his right to life, liberty, etc. He has a duty to work or otherwise contribute, to participate in government; to be a good citizen. There is also a flip side to bildung; society has some responsibilities to its citizens. It is recognition of the fact that good citizens don't just happen. When access to education or to health care is denied to someone, he is much less likely to turn into the kind of citizen society is looking for.
So is Obama steering us toward socialism? Maybe. There are two polar extremes on the political/economic continuum. At one end is socialism, at the other, feudalism. Would we rather head toward feudalism? You remember feudalism, right? That system predominated western civilization up until the American and French revolutions. A system based on the idea that people are not born free, but rather are born as subjects of the ruling class. We all work and live, not for the betterment of society, but for the betterment of the privileged class.
Nobody is openly calling for a return to feudalism, are they? So just what is the Obama opposition calling for? They don't seem to be proposing anything positive, they just tell us what they don't want (which is basically anything Obama does). Well then, what don't they want? Unions, national health care, easier access to higher education, equal pay for equal work; you know, ""socialism."" So, in which direction should we proceed?
Kevin J. Mack is a junior majoring in history. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
