Free to Choose... at a Price

Transcription

1 Free to Choose... at a Price ---"-"""-- Ernest Lewis, Jr Lewie4@wfu.edu

2 I I Introduction: In their book, Free to Choose Nobel-Prize Nobel-prize-winning economist Milton Friedman and his wife Rose argue that the welfare state programs fail because of "the use of bad means to achieve good objectives. n 1 They continue to argue that ultimately those government initiatives that seek to promote greater equality among citizens necessitate choosing some values and people to be elevated over others, thereby diminishing the equal standing of all citizens. Is this really true in reality? I believe United States history would bring their argument into question. I believe that there are many situations in which the government has had to address complicated societal issues through legislative, judicial, and executive means. Three of those issues were slavery, woman's suffrage and Civil Rights. Now the government has not always been successful and needs to be strategic in picking issues to step in. The US government has the responsibility to "promote the general welfare" and that is where values are created. Values out of Necessity: The argument ofmr. and Mrs. Friedman in Free to Choose is compelling, but it overemphasizes the failures of social programs (Medicare, Welfare and others) and then use their failures to build their argument to say that these programs hamper the rights of those who do not utilize the programs. I believe that the preamble of the United States Constitution argues differently: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 2 The preamble of the constitution so eloquently lays out the direction and desires for the legislation of the United States. But, while its preamble is eloquent about the role of government, the history ofthis country has not always been about promoting the general welfare of their people. Let's look at three major moments in history where the United States government had to dictate a response to social issues. One such momentlinstitutionlblack-eye was slavery. As an institution, slavery drove the expansion ofthe South and the construction of Washington, DC. I don't want to particularly engage slavery totally in this context but, I will structure a framework in which the government dictating the legislative response to a social ill was necessary. The argument over slavery started a war between the states. But, it was not truly over slavery, but over the rights of states versus the power of the Federal Government. At the end of the day, the fight was over maintaining an economic structure that was threatened. But, let's take it from the perspective of the slave. They needed a "Moses" to break them out of a seemingly endless cycle of despair and broken families. The American system of slavery when the foreigu slave trade was embargoed in 1808 became a breeding program where de-humanization was the norm. Fast-forward to 1861, the South has declared themselves the Confederate States of America and The Civil War has begun. But, it 1 Friedman, Milton, and Rose D. Friedman. Free to Choose: a Personal Statement. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Print

3 takes the United States government two years to write an executive order to deal with slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the "states in rebellion". The abolition of slavery through the Proclamation and then the 13 th Amendment was necessary and dictated to the whole of the country that this was an unacceptable institution. From slavery to the creation of Jim Crow (which we will deal with later), in between was the right for women to vote. The paradox of the founding of this nation was that there was an exclusionary aspect. The Declaration ofindependence declares, "We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.,,3 That statement excluded three groups of people: non-land owning men, women and slaves. For women, the process to become fully vested members of society took 144 years and it required the government to step in with the twentieth amendment ratified in This was in response to a rally cry from Susan B. Anthony and others demanding equality symbolized by the right to vote. I submit to you that society would not have changed without the incentive of federal legislation. Post-Civil War South was in shambles with close to ten-million former slaves suddenly thrown into this hostile society. The South created a system of rules that deliberately bypassed the Federal Government. In the thirteenth amendment, slavery as an institution was abolished (sharecropping was created) and in the fifteenth amendment, the right to vote was granted to black slaves (the Jim Crow rules were created). I submit to you that Jim Crow was specifically designed to keep the door of opportunity closed to former slaves. This is the climate that birthed segregation. The Supreme Court judicially affirmed segregation via its ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). "Separate, but equal" never happened in actuality. This created a climate where discrimination was the norm. This was the norm for another forty-eight years until the Supreme Court had to step in and say that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." This ruling overturned Plessy and launched the Civil Rights Movement. This ruling gave the backing to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the March on Washington and the Voting Rights Acts. The government had to legislatively and judicially change the values of all. Did the Voting Rights Act damage the rights of all? Did the thirteenth, fifteenth and twentieth amendments threaten the rights of those not directly affected? I submit to you they did not. The Limitations of Government: We have discussed three instances that the government stepping in to dictate rights and values were a necessity. But, is there a line that government should not cross? Yes, there is. But, I disagree with the Friedmans that the institutions of welfare, social security and housing subsidies cross that line. The programs are not the abject failures that they have been overwhelmingly portrayed. After describing the corruption within the system of welfare, the Friedman's concede, "... the average income of the people who are subsidized by these vast sums is probably lower than the average income of the people who pay the taxes to support them...,,4 The problem with this portrayal is that it myopically oversimplifies the government's responses to the complicated problem of poverty. The gap between the wealthy and the working class is broadening and it is the role of the entirety of society to address it, not just the government. 3 transcript.html 4 Friedman and Friedman,

4 The government needs to create sweeping reforms in the systems of welfare, Social Security and Medicare but the programs still need to exist. Financial responsibility for the poor is "promoting the general welfare". You have to accept the absurdity of generalizing the working poor and poor as merely the bottom rungs purely "too lazy and stupid" to do better to not see the need for some systems to fill the gap. This is the role that government must fill, but not alone. Society needs to accept some responsibility. The responsibility for the poor is on everyone, because we are interconnected. Answers and Conclusions: But, when is the government "over-stepping"? The answer is when the government steps outside of the parameters of the Preamble ofthe Constitution. This defines the role of the government and really allows the Constitution to be a living document. This means that what is acceptable for the government to do to address societal issues changes in every generation. A bank bailout was unthinkable in the 1830's, just like the government affirming slavery would be in As a citizen I have to understand that my freedom is not free. It comes at a high price of human life. As an African-American student, I have benefited from "governmental overstepping." I have the right to vote, the opportunity to be at Wake Forest, the opportunity to be successful and influential in society all because government overstepping. The government stepped in and legislatively incentivized equality. Has it been perfect? Absolutely, not! But, does imperfection mean that government should not protect the least of these? Absolutely, not! At the end of the day, we as citizens must be vigilant against oversimplifying and generalizing the problems that society faces. We must seek total solutions not just governmental solutions. This is the space that the government must exist, prepared to help, but there to push citizens to seek creative solutions to the society's problems. 3

5 Bibliography Friedman, Milton, and Rose D. Friedman. Free to Choose: a Personal Statement. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, , 109. Print. United States Constitution. transcript.html United States Declaration ofindependence. transcript.htrnl 4