Jordan Wilner

Introductory American Politics: Critical Response #1

Casey McNeill

11/18/10

America's historical lateness of entering the social policy realm is not surprising at all.

Ever since the Industrial Revolution, an enormous economic emphasis has been placed on

capitalism in this country. People were encouraged to find fortune for themselves, and those who

couldn't, were considered “unfit”. A possible theory for this alienation is that America's long

culture of “ freedom & justice” gradually led to increasing equality of opportunity. Eventually,

the ability to grow rich was so accessible that whoever didn't achieve that goal, but desired to,

was considered un-resourceful.

However, America overlooks three large factors in the creation of the poor class. Firstly,

some poverty is caused by natural events, outside the control of mankind. A perfect example was

Hurricane Katrina, which caused the desolation of New Orleans, and left many with nothing. In

addition, poverty can be caused by human error, a prime example being racism. Many African-

Americans are in the working class not by their own hand, but rather from the decades of racism,

economic and social, that they've endured in America. Finally, some events, whether natural or

man-made, are so catastrophic, that they affect everyone, regardless of class. In these cases, such

as in the Great Depression, everyone is reduced to the same socio-economic level, and must also

regain their status together.

Redistributive policies, despite all their opponents, often hold valid points and solutions.

When national wealth and finance become too weighted to one side, either luxury or poverty, a

nation's political standpoint can be distorted for the worse. For example, the Somalian incident of

the 1990s demonstrated that when a destitute country becomes desperate, violence always

remains an option, even among themselves. In contrast, Nazi Germany illustrated that when a

socioeconomic class gains too much wealth, that group often adopts a superiority complex;
tragically the Holocaust in this scenario.

Social Security is very liberal, even though the policy develops from a conservative

mindset. As the text states, “...[Social Security] sends a message that people cannot be trusted to

save voluntarily to take care of their retirement needs” (Lowi et. all 643). That sense of prudence

has been a staple of right-wing beliefs since the Founding. But Social Security is also very

liberal, and not just because “...[Social Security] is not real insurance” (Lowi et. all 643). If one

considers the entire premise, that of the government taking an active role in ordinary citizens'

lives, the realization becomes very clear. Right-wing activists are always attempting to enlarge

government responsibility in the nation. And Social Security is a method to prevent current

employees from wasting their finances for themselves or others in the future.

Non-contributory programs are very risky, because the contributors are receiving nothing

in return for their donations. This type of policy must be reserved for only the most dependent of

the poor. Any citizen even slightly capable of improving their situation must be encouraged,

even if by government, to explore that avenue first. Means-testing is, therefore, the only viable

way to ensure the proper beneficiaries of non-contributory programs. The qualifications for these

policies must be very stringent, in order to sort the needy from the poor. If not, potentially twice

as many citizens could have applied under the TANF program, which replaced the lenient AFDC

program.