A Nation Like No Other (26 page)

This model is both inadequate and inappropriate for the modern world and has generated unforeseen and devastating consequences. Its collapse is driven by simple economic reality. Massive, publicly funded social insurance and benefit systems have proved unsustainable, driven
toward bankruptcy by the demographic realities of lower birth rates and aging populations, and by the damage to economic growth caused by the high taxes that fund these entitlements.

The American entitlement system is, essentially, a federally mandated wealth transfer system from one group of people to another. Social Security, for instance, was designed in an age where there were forty-two workers for every retiree and poverty amongst senior citizens was rampant. Today, however, there are three workers for every retiree, with that ratio projected to fall to 2–1 in the coming decades. Furthermore, young people entering the workforce today are more likely to be poor than seniors are. Coupled with Americans' increasing lifespans, a wealth transfer system from, in this case, the young to the old will not serve the economic needs or meet the economic realities facing future generations.

For the first time since its creation, Social Security is now operating in the red. The Congressional Budget Office says it will continue to operate at a loss until its structure is reformed.
³
Medicare is in even worse shape due to demographic realities as well as exploding health costs that are destroying its solvency. The trustees of Social Security and Medicare estimate that the two programs have $46 trillion combined in unfunded liabilities—that's $15,333 per person. Medicaid, which covers the healthcare of the poor, costs an additional half trillion dollars a year. Those costs under the current structure are only going to increase because there are no market-driven pressures to lower costs or to improve benefits.

Entitlement spending eats up a majority—and growing—share of the federal budget. Unless we adopt a different model, our national debt will be nearly twice the size of the economy by 2030. It will become three times the size of the economy by 2050. This is a debt that will be carried by our children, their children, and their children again. The interest payments on the federal debt will rapidly grow beyond the cost of national security and will crush the next generation with a tax burden just to pay interest on the debt they inherited.

The creaking bureaucratic administrative state that operates our regulatory agencies and social insurance programs is also running into the harsh realities of the twenty-first century. The administrative state was fashioned in a time of industrialization, mass production, and
top-down hierarchal management. The sprawling federal and state bureaucracies were designed along those same lines, both in their command structure and in the way they view how they serve the American people. Government is not Burger King; you can't have it your way. In fact, it is determined for you to have it the government's way, that is, the bureaucratic way.

Today's economy, however, is marked by customization and personalization. It is increasingly globalized, individualized, and dependent on high-tech information systems. Aside from certain aspects of our military, the bureaucratic structure of government has not adjusted to the new world. That's because, unlike private companies, the government doesn't have to stay competitive. Instead of encouraging economic growth, the big-government welfare state suppresses it by redistributing tax income in a way that discourages work, savings, and investment. The result is an atrophied, exhausted administrative state that is completely unsuited to the demands of the twenty-first century economy. Compare your typical experience shopping at
Amazon.com
with what you go through at the DMV to understand the difference.

In addition to these harsh economic realities, there is a deeper flaw within the premise of the big-government welfare state that has led to its demise: ultimately, it is incompatible with human nature because it does not view American citizens as individuals with inherent dignity and rights.

We have discussed throughout this book how America's extraordinary success can ultimately be attributed to habits of liberty stemming from our founding principles. The Progressives began by “progressing” away from these principles and accepting a European socialist critique of America. According to this view, American wealth inequality proved that the aspects of civil society that the Founders championed—family, religion, charities, and civic groups—were inadequate. They believed that to guarantee the people's well-being, America should transform into a collective state led by an intellectual elite—namely, them. So they developed government programs to meet the people's material needs, in
effect creating government substitutes for charities, churches, and other philanthropic civic groups.

The Progressives morally justified the big-government liberal welfare state as a way for the American people to fulfill a shared responsibility for our neighbors' well-being. Their vision was collectivism, the system rejected in the early settlements of Plymouth and Jamestown as a failure. But by having government take the lead role in addressing social problems, the big-government welfare state eroded Americans' historic responsibility to participate in civil society. Whereas the traditional American attitude was to ask “What can I do to help?” the collectivist mindset is, “Why isn't government doing something to help—and who can we tax more to pay for it?”

Furthermore, as the welfare state grew to encompass not only the poor but even much of the middle class, its beneficiaries were relieved of not only responsibility for their neighbors, but for themselves. The result is that too many Americans now approach their government as desperate dependents instead of as autonomous, dignified, and self-sufficient citizens.

Now that so many Americans are dependent on government, we find the big-government welfare state is incapable of meeting the needs of the people. That is because human beings need more than simply material sustenance—they require spiritual and moral fulfillment, and the self-respect that comes from working hard to provide for one's own needs.

Because the welfare state defines the American people solely by their material needs, its administrators are incapable of understanding or predicting the way people will react to their programs. The American people, simply put, have never taken kindly to being bossed around by bureaucrats. Bill Mauldin's grubby, grumbling World War II heroes “Willie & Joe” exemplified our “Greatest Generation” of men who would answer to government authority only until the given task was finished, and even while doing so, behaved in an anti-authoritarian manner that was quintessentially American.

Thus, the scientific efficiency that was supposed to infuse the Progressives' administrative state never materialized; as the big-government welfare state has grown, so too has its incompetence and wastefulness.

As this failure became increasingly clear over time, the Left has invested even more power in the government to try and force people to behave the way they want them to in order to achieve their ideal, efficient society. Friedrich Hayek, George Orwell, Milton Friedman, and many others warned about this willingness among the Left to resort to coercion. As Hayek noted, “The more the state plans, the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.”

In short, the central failing of the big-government welfare state is that its designers and current champions do not think of people as individuals with inherent dignity who are capable both of self-government and compassion for their fellow man; they think of citizens as groups of people to be organized, placated, and for some radicals on the Left, to be molded into “new Americans.” The famous and influential Progressive activist John Dewey, for one, saw public education as a vehicle to remodel citizens to fit Progressive concepts of the role of the citizen in relationship to the collective state. This violates a core tenet of American Exceptionalism: respect for the inherent dignity of the individual.

The main selling points of the big-government welfare state during the Progressive era—its efficiency, its moral purpose in unifying society, and its economic benefits—are in fact its greatest liabilities. It has become an unresponsive, broken, and destructive apparatus that has brought about huge debts, inefficient and intrusive government bureaucracies, a weakening economy, and a cultural and moral rot that has trapped generations of citizens in poverty and dependence.

As the big-government welfare state collapses, the Left has employed every tool at its disposal, no matter how corrupt, to preserve and expand its power base. It may cripple the country, but in the tradition of the urban political machine bosses of old, left-wing leaders figure, “At least we'll own the wreckage.”

That is why the Left passed ObamaCare despite the clear opposition of the American people. It's also why it so bitterly resists attempts to make payment of union dues voluntary, not mandatory, and why it is fighting so hard to abolish secret ballot elections for forming unions. The
Left knows that its power rests not on popular support, but on its ability to use Big Government to reward its allies and punish its enemies.

Unfortunately, with some significant exceptions such as Congressman Paul Ryan, the Right has largely failed to offer a comprehensive, alternative vision to the Left's failed model. Too many Republicans only offer cuts to the current welfare state—in other words, “less of the same”—to address our current challenges.

This is inadequate. First, the American people will not tolerate leaving the poor helpless. It is important to note that the big-government welfare state, while fatally flawed, still has an innate attraction for many people because it appeals to a common desire for all Americans to have equality and opportunity.

And second, if we were to keep the current system, the comprehensive cuts needed to stabilize it would be politically impossible to impose. As discussed, a significant portion of the American people, including the middle class, now depend on some sort of government program, such as Medicare and Social Security. The beneficiaries of these programs will not be willing to sacrifice that support without an acceptable replacement. That's why, in the long run, being the “pain party” is a losing proposition for Republicans.

Lincoln once declared, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulties and we must rise to the occasion.…We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.” Lincoln's counsel holds true today. I believe it is time for the Republican Party to disenthrall itself from the dogmas of being an opposition party, rediscover the fundamental principles of our republic, and based on those principles, work out a comprehensive program for renewing our economy and government. If we remember who we are, we will know what to do. That is why American Exceptionalism matters.

Replacing the Left will require not only a fundamental change in policies, but a change in habits. Instead of waiting for government to
reform itself, we should immediately start living our lives every day in ways that promote freedom, personal responsibility, and self-government. Fortunately, through their habits of liberty, the Founders provided us with a clear and proven model for the kind of virtuous life that sustains a healthy republic.

The challenge is to apply our Founders' example to twenty-first-century conditions. This is not difficult, but it will require some hard work and a personal commitment to action. Here are ten things you can do to help America's future be as exceptional as its past.

If we are going to win the argument, we have to be prepared for the argument. One of the left-wing elite's great advantages is that they include many of the most studied and most articulate people in our society. In their positions in the news media, schools and universities, bureaucracies, and judgeships, they can make powerful arguments for their views. They may be wrong, but they sound good.

Americans should learn about the issues and analyze how they relate to the principles and history of American Exceptionalism. In the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, we have to study and master our arguments so we can make our case convincingly against well-prepared opponents.

I am encouraged by the tea party movement's commitment to study groups and by the number of people who now carry a copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Remember, learning always comes first.

Once you feel confident in your knowledge, start speaking out in favor of American Exceptionalism.

We live in an age of amazing and diverse media. You can establish your own website. You can tweet. You can communicate on Facebook
and by email. You can go on talk radio. You can invent your own online talk radio show. You can write letters to the editors. You can organize events (for example, a public celebration of George Washington's birthday) and see if you can get the media to cover them.

If you are willing to be noisy, you're in luck—because you live in the easiest time in history to be noisy.

Go to your local school board, city council, or county commission and ask questions. Go to town hall meetings for your state legislators or members of Congress. If they don't hold town hall meetings, go to their office. Go with friends to the state capitol and even to Washington.

Once you're there, argue for the right policies. If those policies don't yet exist, invent them. We are entering an age of citizen-centered politics and citizen-centered government. We need so many new solutions and our problems and challenges are so diverse and so difficult that every citizen should feel empowered to challenge the old order and to help develop new solutions.