I would put it even more bluntly by saying that any government sponsored charity aimed to help "less fortunate" is bound to fail to attract public support. If the goal is to help excluded segments of the population, the way to go is by building universal programs that benefit all or most. For example, instead of "helping the poor to become self-sufficient" a better way to go is an employment and skill development program for general public that is not income-tested; instead of subsidized health insurance for the poor (as in Obamacare) a better way to go is a universal health insurance for everyone. Instead of right to form a union, a better way is proposing a universal Employment Bill of Rights along the lines suggested by FDR.
AFIK, no serious argument for such universal programs has been offered by any administration since the passage of the Social Security Act. However, I also believe that is such an argument has been proposed and outlined in a clear, forceful and convincing way (rather than technocrat mumbo-jumbo usually oozed by the Democrats) - it would attract a majority popular support. I have to admit that this would require a very different type of leadership than we currently have, not a consensus builder but someone with enough political capital and determination on his or her own (like LBJ) to put up a decisive fight for this despite opposition from his/her own party.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:13 PM, michael yates <mikedjyates at msn.com> wrote:
> Chuck points out the power of the dominant ideology in erasing from the
> collective memory any notions that anyone should get anything for free, as
> a matter of right. Charles Blow had a good column in the NYT recently about
> US attitudes toward the poor (A Town without Pity, 8/9/13). He says, "In
> this America, people blame welfare for creating poverty rather than for
> mitigating the impact of it. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in June
> found that the No. 1 reason people gave for our continuing poverty crisis
> was: “Too much welfare that prevents initiative.” What is interesting is
> that so many people must know friends and relatives who are poor because of
> circumstances and who have plenty of initiative.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."