Trump didn’t need to come along for social programs to be in trouble, but he surely is not going out of his way to protect them, either. This is a long story in American politics. First, we have the ostensible fear of big government – do you really want it reaching into your healthcare and retirement? Most Republicans—and more than a few Democrats—place in question the ability of government to handle suchcomplex undertakings. And it is undeniable that this same reaction can be elicited quite easily across the political culture. Americans—perhaps Anglo North Americans—have a different relationship to the ‘state’ than we find in other OECD countries. We are less comfortable with its presence in our lives. NorthAmericans don’t talk about ‘the state’, just government, which can be disposed of and replaced by popular command.
Add to this the ongoing claim, since at least the 1980s, that this cradle-to-grave existence, consolidated in the post-war era has run its course. It’s irresponsible, and we can’t sustain it fiscally. America needs to fashion market-based alternatives to these supposedly dying systems, rather than propping them up until their inevitable collapse.
There are, of course, counterarguments to both of these claims, but in an individualized and market-heavy political culture, these are regularly brushed away. And not just with the help of Republicans. Still, the social state in the US—for all its faults—has continued to grow, albeit on an incremental, piecemeal basis. In this episode, we want to ask the question whether the current administration marks a break in that trend. We ask whether the administration—in its flurry of activity—also intends to dismantle cherished social programs and to what end. What could this possibly achieve politically, and if it brings only negative political returns, why do it?
So join us, on Angry and Verklemmt, as we consider the assault on democracy as an assault on the social…