Who Killed Civil Society? - A Review

We often take it for granted that the bulk of social issues have a government funded solution with a complex bureaucracy behind it. Is someone out of work? To the unemployment office they go to fill out forms, search for jobs in the database, and collect a check. Are they short of funds for food? There is a program to issue a card with funds that can be spent at certain retail outlets to fill the pantry. Privately funded soup kitchens, shelters, and other programs exist, but they often serve as contractors for the government, subject to the rules laid down by the centralized bureaucrats. Or, such charities exist on the margins to fill in gaps until the real help from the government can get there.

Many of these social issues used to be dealt within civil society rather than through governmental policies and programs.

The rise of the government as the primary welfare agency is an artifact of the late industrial era. Prior to around the turn of the 19th to 20th century, the majority of civil welfare was funded and conducted on a private basis. There are certainly cases where those organizations fell short of excellence, but one thing they were able to do was help transmit norms and values that might help people adapt to the system and succeed within it.

One of the more significant misconceptions about poverty is that it is primarily material. There are certainly material aspects to poverty, but simply writing a check, giving a credit card for food, and subsidizing rent are insufficient to overcome poverty. Those who live in poverty often see it as a spiritual and emotional condition, as much as it is a lack of material resources.

Government programs can be very efficient at proving material relief, but by their very nature, they often discourage helping solve non-material problems. While the government may have better resources to meet physical needs, civil society might be more efficient at helping change values and behaviors that contribute to material poverty.

Who Killed Civil Society? The Rise of Big Government and Decline of Bourgeois Norms tells the story of the shift from civil society functioning to alleviate poverty to the dominance of government programs. Simultaneously, this also accompanied the shift from the transmission of “bourgeois” values to supposedly value-free providence of material aid. The author, Howard Husock, tells the story through the biography of six significant figures who were engaged in seeking to improve the lot of the poor.

This short book has six content chapters with a brief introduction and conclusion. The introduction tells the story of the author’s father who passed through civil society as an orphan and came out as a success case. The biographies include significant historical figures within the poverty alleviation movement such as Charles Loring Brace, Jane Addams, Mary Richmond, Grace Abbott, Wilbur Cohen, and Geoffrey Canada. From Loring Brace to Cohen, the biographies chart an arc from concern for imparting values while helping the poor to primary focus on alleviating the physical symptoms of poverty. The final example is of an African American who was exceptionally successful in changing the trajectory of the lives of poor African Americans living in rough neighborhoods.

The author’s affiliation with the Manhattan Institute, which favors free markets and limited government, as well as the subtitle of the book make it fairly obvious that Husock begins with the assumption that government as the primary solution to poverty is not the best option. However, the book is an even-handed discussion of the historical facts. This is not a diatribe against big government, but a call to recognize that even if government is a large part of the solution to poverty, we cannot rely on that.

There is a segment of the population who view bourgeois norms like thrift, hard work, and aspiration, as a form of oppression. For those that believe that the system is irredeemably gamed, this book will likely be of little interest. However, for readers trying to figure out why poverty seems to be increasingly generational, Husock has some possible answers. It may be that teaching people they are victims of the system is less effective in alleviating poverty than helping them to succeed within the system. That is the essential argument of Husock’s book.

This historical account shows how and why the transition from civil society to government programs happened. It was well intentioned advocates seeking to alleviate the physical symptoms of poverty, which they believed to be the cause of social ills. However, the data seems to support Husock’s thesis that this was not necessarily a good thing and that the lack of appropriate values tends to encourage and exacerbate the physical symptoms of poverty.

Marvin Olasky’s book, The Tragedy of American Compassion, traces a similar trajectory from civil society to government programs as the solution to poverty. Who Killed Civil Society? and Olasky’s book complement each other well and could be paired to good effect in a course on poverty alleviation. Their agreement, however, could be explained by the fact that both are right-leaning thinkers.

However, more recent books by left-leaning authors tend to make similar cases about some of the issues with government programs for poverty alleviation and the need for civil society. Daniel Hatcher’s book, The Poverty Industry: The Exploitation of America’s Most Vulnerable Citizens, outlines many of the abuses by government programs that entrap and victimize those they are intended to help. Hilary Cottam’s book, Radical Help, details her efforts to create programs in the UK’s expansive welfare state that rebuild the fabric of civil society.

If we are serious about poverty alleviation, we need to talk about what the actual causes of poverty are. Then we need to ask how to eliminate those causes. Even as the fabric civil society continues to fray at an increasing rate, it is becoming clear to the left and the right that whatever the funding model, civil society is necessary to prevent and eliminate the symptoms of poverty.

Husock’s book is an interesting read, especially for those wondering how the contemporary welfare state in the U.S. evolved. The book handles a contentious issue fairly, though the author clearly has a point of view. At the same time, the biographies are handled so sympathetically that it is possible for readers who strongly favor limited government to see why these individuals sought to alleviate poverty primarily through the growth of government programs. This book makes a solid argument that a return to encouraging hard work, thrift, and planning deserves more attention and care than the contemporary system tends to allow. Whatever the funding model is, Husock makes a strong case that teaching norms would do a great deal to improve society.

Who Killed Civil Society?: The Rise of Big Government and Decline of Bourgeois Norms

By Howard A. Husock

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Why Liberalism Failed - A Review

I think there are probably a half dozen people in the world that think things are about as good as they could be. They are probably either in a coma or eating ice cream at the moment. For the rest of us, it is pretty obvious that something stinks in the kingdom of Denmark.

In the United States and across the Western world, liberal democracies are teetering on the edge of populism. The levels of misery are climbing in areas of the United States as more and more people are dying “deaths of despair,” often by overdosing on opioids in an attempt to dull the ache inside.

Where did we go wrong? What happened to the home of the free and the brave?

For some, the growing sense of dis-ease fuels a call to return to some earlier state of supposed greatness. This is a call to turn back the clock to halcyon days when contentment was higher (in some circles) and the stressful influences of social isolation were much less prevalent. For others, the same conditions are cause for increasing centralized government control, increasing redistribution of wealth, and passing laws to make people conform to the sort of behaviors that are deemed beneficial by the people that really know. Both of these call for variations of a sort of social liberalism (distinct from progressivism). Patrick Deneen argues that the best remedy for what ails us is moving away from liberalism, because the populism and dis-ease we are experiencing is a feature, not a bug, of the liberal political order.

Although the meaning of the term “liberal” or “liberalism” has changed over the years and is often used to denote progressivism, liberalism is a broader political philosophy that includes both classical liberals (i.e., conservatives) and progressive liberals (i.e., progressives). As a definition of the term, Deneen writes, “Liberalism was premised upon the limitation of government and the liberation of the individual from arbitrary political control.” This led, in its early application, to a representative democracy in the United States with assurance of free speech, the freedom of religion, and robust property rights. In its early implementations, liberalism was supported by the premodern political order that still believed in virtue as a necessary and worthy human ideal.

For all the benefits of liberalism (and there are many), it has within it the seeds of its own demise. Liberalism lacks the ability to reproduce virtue, because its foundation lacks substance. Liberalism is something of a content-free philosophy. It functions more as an organizing framework for other substantive philosophies. However, this contentlessness quickly becomes its own content, much like Seinfeld, a show about nothing, had a strong satirical message that tended to deconstruct social norms. Just as Seinfeld worked because it borrowed the substance from the world and made it appear irrelevant, so liberalism has worked borrowing from the substance of other philosophies.

That’s all fine and well until there are no other philosophies broadly held by a culture that are strong enough to support liberalism. According to Deneen, that is what we are experiencing. Thus, we have an anti-culture that really serves as a reaction to whatever came before. We have a progression toward dis-integration of social structures to the point that even obvious realities like maleness and femaleness are up for debate, or, in truth, considered to be forms of violent oppression by an elite, but culturally powerful minority.

Deneen’s book is a bit jarring in its pessimism, but there were few points that I could find strong counter arguments. If anything, I think he may simply be a bit more negative about our chances of maintaining the goods of liberalism than is really warranted. Time will tell. I still think that Jonah Goldberg’s Suicide of the West may be the better path, where we push toward a more beneficent version of liberalism. It is, as Goldberg argues, very hard work, but I think it may still be the way to go.

Still, Deneen’s proposed path forward, which he does not bring up until the conclusion of the volume, is worth considering. He argues that we need to move away from liberalism to something new. He proposes three initial steps:

1.       First, acknowledge the legitimate achievements of liberalism. There is no question that our material condition has benefited greatly from the advancement of philosophical liberalism, with the ability to move, to innovate, and to retain more of what we produce.

2.       Second, he argues we must “outgrow the age of ideology.” This will require us to “focus on developing practices that foster new forms of culture, household economics, and polis life.” I think what this means in context is focus more on people than on big ideas and grand restructuring of the world.

3.       Third, we must implement the first two steps, by building on and not abandoning the good things that have come before. This is the least clear of the three steps, but I think Deneen is calling for progress that does not try to begin de novo, as the Enlightenment project of liberalism. The hope is that we can use the positives of liberalism in combination with the treasures of ancient wisdom to forge a more humane future.

Why Liberalism Failed deserves to be read and the ongoing discussion that has spawned from Deneen’s work is worth the attention it has received. Nearly everyone agrees that something is wrong. The two main answers we have in the US in the DNC and GOP do not seem have anything like a realistic vision for future flourishing. A healthy conversation about what society ought to be and how it ought to be shaped is a necessary and worthy endeavor.

Why Liberalism Failed (Politics and Culture)

By Patrick J. Deneen

Buy on Amazon