The superficial, shadow-boxing nature of many of these critiques should also be noted. At one level they are valid and trenchant counterblasts to the more familiar litanies of increase and success. At a deeper level, however, they stem from and serve to reinforce widely shared assumptions about the correct and inevitable nature of the welfare state. What is criticised is not the welfare state itself, but the failure to make ours more of a welfare state - more munificent, more redistributive, more dominant. Evidence of failure does not lead to a querying of the goals and ideals of the welfare state, or a search for other ways of organising a modern society. New Zealand lacks, perhaps most strikingly by contrast with North America, a parallel scholarship built on opposition to the welfare state. It is possible to oppose the welfare state in important aspects and yet be human, civilised and thoughtful, though one might doubt it reading the New Zealand literature. If one of the duties of scholars is to keep alive and develop alternative, unfashionable modes of thought, then it must be said that our intellectual traditions have been impoverished by an unwillingness or inability to reflect upon core assumptions - in short, to question ourselves.
And really, not much has changed.
A couple of books that criticised the welfare system were published by the NZ Business Roundtable during the 1990s, but neither were by New Zealand writers. This century, now nearly nine years old, has seen a continuation of dominance by left-leaning academia and policy analysts whose criticism of the welfare state extends only as far as changing delivery mechanisms, levels and targets. Margaret McClure's extensive work spanning one hundred years of social security is a mine of useful information but her language is full of loathing for private charity. Her approval of the welfare state is signalled in the title of her work, A Civilised Community.
The reform landscape is barren. There is absolutely nothing that would indicate National wants to have a debate about "the way a modern society organises itself." What will it take to break the uncritical bias towards the welfare state?
Or, is it already broken and just not reflected among the lofty elites, political leaders and sentinel civil servants?
3 comments:
That is a very difficult question. Academia, which should be challenging assumptions, is heavily left-leaning, and has been so for considerable time. As a result, a left leaning bias is perpetuated, and it is simply impossible for those with a different view to even obtain positions. In addition there are all these commissions and other institutions that undertake and contract research, for instance the families commission etc. These institutes are also very left wing biased, and they award taxpayer dollar funding to 'researchers' that come from a certain perspective. Than there are all the quango (quasi non-government organizations), that are also largely taxpayer funded, but which are entirely left leaning in ideology. One only needs to look at the type of 'independent' organizations that were supporting the 'yes' vote in the smacking issue to identify these institutions.
So while there may be a consensus with the 'common' populus that there is an urgent need to revisit the operation of the welfare state, nothing short of revolution will remove the layers upon layers of left wing ideology that effectively suppresses these sentiments from the ordinary taxpaying sod, who just wants to be left alone and be able to improve him/herself and his/her family.
There's absolutely nothing to add to what bez said.
That's it, in a nutshell.
"Or, is it already broken..."
Honest question - do you really believe that? Apart from a moderate level of dissatisfaction I don't know anybody in my circle of acquaintance who has the stomach for serious welfare reform, even the 'righties'.
Whether policy leads opinion or opinion leads policy, ultimately the state will chase the votes. Unfortuntely I don't much evidence that there are serious votes to be had in what needs to be done, and I suspect the pollies of whatever hue already know that.
Post a Comment