James A. Dorn thinks one can plot the expansion of government largesse against the readily apparent fall of responsible behavior in American society:   

Politicians thrive on using other people’s money and promising free lunches. The growth of government has politicized life and weakened the nation’s moral fabric. Government intervention—in the economy, the community, and society—has increased the payoff from political action and reduced the scope of private action. People have become more dependent on the State and have sacrificed freedom for a false sense of security.
   

One cannot blame government for all of society’s ills, but there is no doubt that economic and social legislation, especially since the mid-1960s, has had a negative impact on individual responsibility.   

Individuals lose their moral bearing when they become dependent on government. Subsidies, bailouts, and other aspects of the “nanny state” socialize risk and reduce individual accountability. The internal moral compass that normally guides individual behavior will no longer function when the State undermines incentives for moral conduct and blurs the distinction between right and wrong.
   

More government spending is not the answer to our social, economic, or cultural problems. The task is not to reinvent government or to give politics meaning; the task is to limit government and revitalize civil society. Government meddling will only make matters worse.   

Dorn doesn’t merely catalog all the present ills but also offers solutions to this sorry state of affairs; here’s one:   

First and foremost, we need to expose the intellectual, constitutional, and moral bankruptcy of the welfare state. We need to change the way we think about government and restore an ethos of liberty and responsibility. The political process will then be ready to begin rolling back the welfare state.
   

Although Americans have grown accustomed to the welfare state, its disappearance would strengthen the nation’s moral fabric and reinvigorate civil society. We should end the parasitic State—not because we want to harm the poor, but because we want to help them help themselves.   

A laudable goal, to be sure—a change in thinking is always initially necessary to effect reform—BUT what are the odds of getting even a small segment of the populace to change their ways when it’s in the interests of many people—and the majority of politicians—to keep the status quo? The political [polis = “city; state; citizen”] will to return to constitutional governance must be engendered at all levels of society, throughout all cultural institutions.   

Indeed, as it looks right now, government and culture are on a collision course, government with its “false sense of morality” (Dorn’s term) and the Judeo-Christian outlook with its genuine sense of charity. Until now we’ve seen skirmishing between the two (e.g., crosses on public land; the gay agenda being imposed through public schools; universal entitlement to health care at taxpayer expense). Which one will prevail? We should have the answer within the next decade or two.   

If we want to help the disadvantaged, we do not do so by making poverty pay, restricting markets, prohibiting educational freedom, discouraging thrift, and sending the message that the principal function of government is to take care of us. We do so by eliminating social engineering and all kinds of welfare, cultivating free markets, and returning to our moral heritage.   

Dorn’s article, an excellent brief for a return to constitutional government in the United States, is available on The Freeman Online.