Beyond its rejection of universalism, the GI bill departed from the New Deal in its stress on individual benefits and individual mobility. The New Deal provided many of its benefits through government institutions that directly hired people, housed them, educated and entertained them. The GI Bill took a different tack, giving funds to individuals to shop for education, housing, employment, and business opportunities in the private market. (Health care came directly from the government through Veterans Administration hospitals and clinics.) In promoting its bill, the American Legion used the language of individual freedom, not social provision. Some of the strongest congressional support for the measure came from conservative critics of the New Deal.I wonder if, in his reference to conservative critics he was referring to our own late Congresswoman, Edith Norse Rogers, for she is known for her support of the GI bill.
So, the author draws what I take to be an Elizabeth Warren like distinction between the view of the individual and the view of the collective good. I think Professor Freeman comes down on the side of Professor Warren. Is this a theme, a thread, within the Democratic Party? Have they gone over from the view of the value of hard work by the individual to a more "European" like view? The author does put it starkly, "the language of individual freedom, not social provision." I would like to not be taken as wishing to ignore the poor, the homeless and those who just can't become part of the system of employment. I do believe, however, that all workers benefit when individuals are best able to maximize their contributions to the nation as a whole. (And why the swipe at mobility? In a book I will be reviewing in this blog, The New Geography of Jobs, that author notes the importance of mobility in avoiding pockets of poverty and even asks if the Federal Government should be providing payments to the unemployed to support movement.)
Can we not have social provision without destroying individual freedom? Once individual freedom is gone it might be very hard to get it back.
Regards — Cliff
3 comments:
Cliff, did you actually serve in the Air Force?
Could you tell me why you don't understand the dynamic that Warren suggests?
In the military, utter restriction of "individual freedom" handily reside with "social provision." It is the discipline, the narrowing of errant, otrthagonal choices that hone a servicemember to the greatest utility to the collective will.
Now, the military is an extreme case.
However, it's still confounding to hear such quibbles about the balance. You know there is a place in our world for limitations of "individual freedom." The degree is the question.
What Warren is focused on is those that have elevated their stature to the point that they can ensure the rules of the game are applied in such a way as to assure their own betterment.
The game is rigged.
It boggles my mind that some will fester on their preference to wear a helmet or a seatbelt, while banksters drain the middle class of wealth.
It would be better for America, imho, if you and your friends would WAKE THE HELL UP!
Oh stop it Jack!!!!!
You sound more like a communist in that you think the government should determine the limits of everything PERMITTED for the individual. You ALWAYS start out your rants by castigating "those rich people" and "those banksters" who "rig the game." Well bucko, they rig the game by using the Democratic party to do it.....largely....so if the Dems are champions of the poor, downtrodden, and "disappearing" middle class (which isn't....and there is not one valid shred of data to support that posit!!)....they are masters at the bait and switch.
Our debt has soared under Obama...and the "balanced" budget under Clinton was a handy piece of journalistic illusion...we were FAR from being "balanced." But then....you folks love to play with definitions. A BALANCED budget is one in which assets equal liabilities. That does not describe America particularly under Democratic RULE.
Your use of military to defend the Sacajawarren philosophy is flawed. To begin with, it is a voluntary force, and therefore there is choice involved in deciding to subordinate one's will to that of The Man. Once that choice is made...then it becomes a contract...but one that can be broken by resignation or completion of enlistment. Warren would not understand that dynamic....and apparently...neither do you.
Cliff served in the AF far longer than your tour in the Army....so I would guess his knowledge in such matters of leadership and force management exceeds yours geometrically.
I am afraid that your plea is not falling on deaf ears. America IS waking up......and not in ways you or your liberal ilk desire. WARNING....VERY hazardous road ahead.
I guess that is why the campaign has turned to personal attacks by the Obama camp vs attacks on record by Romney. The Dems and the MSM have convulsions because Mrs. Romney bought and wore a $900 blouse.....but went into wild adoration because Michelle showed up in London dressed in a nearly $7000 outfit. What is good for the gander or ganderess....is not good for anyone else. This is a banner characteristic of the Democratic party.
Yes, currently we have a volunteer force. At any given moment a draft can be imposed, as it has in the past.
The "man" can and will. It is only the delusioned that pretend this is not so.
Post a Comment