In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3 The American Welfare State Two Narratives Michael Lipsky T he stories societies tell about themselves powerfully shape their choices and their subsequent actions. They affect how people understand their relationship to one another. They guide the futures people can imagine. They suggest the links between past events and current and future developments . They remind us of what we want and how we may achieve our objectives. Narrative is fundamental to social development. We evolved as story-telling beings, and our stories are critical to making sense of what we are doing. Without organizing narratives we are in a sea of random observations. Moreover, people sort out new information and connect it to their underlying values according to the preexisting narratives that structure public discourse. Since government is a critical character in narratives of the state, it is signally important whether the persona of government registers as capable and supportive of the common good, or whether it registers as unreliable and incompatible with common concerns. What people think of government is an assessment not simply of its performance and stature but also of its character as portrayed in extended narratives presented and available over time. This chapter examines two key narratives that have helped shape the political discourse of contemporary social welfare politics in the United States. It offers a broad view of this discourse, suggesting how the narratives influenced or failed to influence the political context that led to changes in welfare policy and management that are of central interest to this volume. It examines this discourse in historical perspective, reviewing key stages in the development of the American welfare state and highlighting trends and moments of change. My point of departure is the turn to the right in American politics, with its rejection of government as an instrument of constructive problem solving. This shift was orchestrated in part by a set of interlocking institutions deliberately 37 38 michael lipsky put in place by conservative intellectuals and activists and well funded by likeminded sponsors. This development is well understood. The intriguing questions that have not been adequately addressed are why liberal counterweight institutions did not develop during the critical decades, and why supporters of welfare state policies acquiesced in the negative views of government.1 One answer I want to suggest is that liberals failed to respond to the conservative challenge because they were involved in a parallel but different discourse. Engaged in ‘‘perfecting the welfare state,’’ they took for granted that progress on welfare state policies could proceed in only one direction. They ignored the possibility that the premises of the welfare state could be called into question. I will not argue that if counterweight liberal institutions had been in place, the conservative perspective would have been neutralized. This is unlikely, and in any event cannot be known. Moreover, the welfare state is in retreat more widely, and surely this trend would have been reflected in the United States. as well (Gilbert 2002). However, it now seems undeniable that the terms of welfare state debates in the United States are strongly influenced by an antigovernment perspective that has grown up relatively uncontested. As a result, advocacy of robust social policies is much more difficult than it might have been if conservative perspectives had been more consistently challenged. Narrative and the Welfare State Robert Reich has argued that there are foundational American stories through which Americans organize their opinions about public affairs. The conservative perspective is consistent with the American story of the ‘‘triumphant individual,’’ the paragon of hard work and self-reliance who is capable of succeeding on his or her own terms. The social welfare perspective fits the story of the ‘‘benevolent community,’’ a narrative that draws on such mythic developments as communal barn raising and organizing of schools in frontier settlements (Reich 1987). At the community level these stories have a basic equivalence. The American character recognizes both the triumphant individual and the benevolent community as stand-ins for many particular scripts. However, at the national level, the story of the benevolent community only resonates if one is able to see government as the equivalent of community and the forum for popular will. The demonization of government, if allowed to dominate the discourse, degrades the benevolent community as a cultural resource for action because the community, at the national level, has no equivalence. Liberals regularly try to evoke the logic of the benevolent community by referencing the GI Bill, extension of [3.142.200.226...

Share