There are two distinct trends evolving in America in the 21st century. One is the emergence of a large underclass, perhaps as many as 75 million people, living in substandard conditions with household incomes of less than $25,000 per year. The other trend is the rise in the scope and magnitude of government at all levels. The size of the federal budget will soon be double that of what is was 10 years ago. The two trends are not unrelated.

In the decades-long debate, largely confined to universities and think tanks, the evidence shows that there is a liberal bias in America. That is to say Americans favor strong and large institutions of government. The dramatic events of the last six months clearly demonstrate that, at their highest levels, both the Republican and Democratic parties favor government intervention in the markets when events seem to spiral out of control.  The Troubled Assets Relief Program and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus” bill) provide ample proof that both parties, at their core, are willing to promote large-scale government initiatives when deemed necessary.

President Barack Obama’s pump-priming stimulus package will likely produce, at best, only marginal improvements in the overall economy. There’s very little historical evidence that large-scale government spending produces economic growth. President Ford vetoed many spending bills in the wake of the 1974 downturn and by Election Day 1976, the economy had begun to stabilize and Ford nearly won election despite a bruising primary campaign waged by Ronald Reagan. With deficits stretching out as far as the eye can see, we are facing an unprecedented rise in the role of government in our lives. We are pursuing the same monetary policies the Weimar Republic and the Confederacy embraced. Those two states exist only on the hard drives at CSPAN and PBS.

Social Security surpluses that mask the underlying deficit will soon be a thing of the past, and the demographic realities that face us will usher in an age of stifling demands on our already-strained health care system.

These events raise one inevitable question: Why would a country that has historically celebrated initiative, individual achievement and free markets become so dependent on large government?

The answer goes back to the very origins of our society. The two great forces at work in the history of the United States are largely antithetical to one another. The forces are capitalism and Christianity. Capitalism (the thesis) is the theory that, within the context of freedom, in helping one’s self, society is benefited. Christianity (the antithesis) preaches that we have a moral obligation to help the poor and underprivileged. In essence, the opposite of capitalism. The combination of these two inherently different models of society has resulted in the synthesis of the two. The impersonal welfare state  (the synthesis) is the byproduct of the collision between the two major ideas Americans have historically embraced. It is an accommodation that most Americans have come to accept.

Is large government inherently oppressive? The answer is no. The two driving forces in our history are both benign, and the synthesis of the two has proven, since the dawn of the New Deal, to be paternalistic rather than fascistic. After all, there is a qualitative difference between putting someone in a gulag and denying them a building permit because of environmental concerns.

In an e-mail exchange with Frances Fukuyama, the brilliant Johns Hopkins professor and author of “The End of History,” long before the current financial crisis, my dialectical musing were met with a stern academic rebuke. He thought my model more or less was consistent with European history. I disagree for one very simple reason:  Christianity’s influence has waned badly in Europe. The events of the past six months have only bolstered my belief that the rise of government in America has an inertia that is rooted in our origins.

Is this the end of history? Probably not. It is more than likely the beginning of history.

Dave Pilliod is a Swanton Village Councilman.

This entry was posted on Friday, March 6th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Guest Column, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.