Obama's Liberalism

A reader writes:

I do question your interpretation of the Social Gospel rhetoric of religious liberals like Barack Obama. You argue that their rhetoric calls for an expansive welfare state of the likes found in Europe. I see it as a call to make more effective, not more expansive, use of the tools of government for dealing with poverty, and as a criticism of the wasteful & bloated spending that the Bush administration has brought us. When Obama and others talk about how a small change in our priorities can ensure a better life for the poorest of our citizens, he isn't talking about creating a European-style socialist state.

They are talking about the wasteful spending our government puts into national defense (such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq) and corporate welfare, and how many of our fiscal policies are aimed at enriching Big Businesses who feed off the public trough (such as Haliburton). They are talking about taking the money we spend already on things that benefit only special interests (and businesses like Haliburton are the epitome of special interests) or actually harm our national interests (like ill-conceived and executed military actions), and redirecting it to programs along the lines of the GI Bill, programs aimed at promoting individual initiative for self-improvement by providing the resources to carry out such initiative. In other words, Obama and others want make sure that American society has an effective framework and infrastructure for the poor to learn how to fish, so that they can feed themselves for a lifetime.

They don't care if this teaching work is done primarily through the private non-profit sector and through the government; they do know that creating this framework and infrastructure requires a societal committment of resources, and that government has a key role to play in channeling these resources.

Ah, yes: eliminating waste and maximizing government efficiency. But who isn't for these things? I'd love to kill off corporate welfare, avoid doomed wars, and encourage self-reliance among the less advantaged. But that's less government, not more. There is somethig awry in believing that government can help people do without government. I see the goal as admirable. But history shows us that the means usually coopt the end.