One of the most significant shifts in my own political opinions over the past 10 years has been my position on welfare, moving from one of complete opposition to pragmatic support. This shift has not been accompanied by becoming a leftist, except in the minds of a few beltway libertarians that think economic issues are the end all of politics and equate any opposition to government interference in the economy as radical socialism. No, rather my support for welfare is for rightwing, cultural reasons.
Growing up in the 1990s, I had a natural attraction to rightwing politics and, at the time, a major force on the Right was Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich, his rise being one of the biggest signs Dixie was leaving its traditional Democratic roots and moving to the Republican Party for reasons that should be outlined in another essay. For Gingrich, one of the driving forces of his philosophy was to remake government, which would entail massive cuts to already existing government programs. Knowing I was a conservative, I saw the welfare state as an enemy conservatives must unite to crush. This thinking only increased when I drifted into libertarianism during the Bush and early Obama years. Now, not even Gingrich-style cuts would do it in my mind, the welfare state must be completely torn up and uprooted the pre-New Deal levels in order for liberty to flourish.
However, that began to change as I moved away from libertarianism and leaned towards nationalism during the later part of the Obama era, cumulating in my current view that welfare is not inherently leftist, but can be used for conservative ends. In complete honesty, one of the biggest events that solidified this shift was a series of firings around 2014 and 2015 for people who voiced what had been completely normie positions. Remember, these were normie-tier positions, stuff that was mainstream in 2000 and might have been even left-leaning in 1990, but that did not matter- folks were still terminated for their opinions. Reflecting on this, I realized that had I gotten what I wanted in 2010 (and there was no unemployment insurance), the cultural Left would have even greater power now.
Diving deeper into history also shifted my thinking. The foundation of the German welfare state was not laid by crypto-Marxists, but rather by Otto von Bismarck, a man so reactionary in his sympathies he originally opposed German unification as he feared that German unification would mean Austrian dominance over his beloved Prussia. Bismarck understood that what appealed to most of the German working-class about socialism was that it offered a way for them to improve their material conditions, to assure they would have enough food to eat. The other, more destructive aspects of socialism, the abolition of private property, the family, and religion did not have mass appeal. But, if conditions grew dire enough for the working-class, they would be willing to embrace, or at least put up with those more destructive elements for improved material conditions. The solution was to create a state that would be able to make some reasonable accommodations for the working-class, thus defusing the growth of the Communist Party. That the communists did not take over Germany after the collapse of the old order after World War I is no doubt partially due to Bismarck’s foresight. And while they lacked Bismarck’s elitism, as I delved more into rightwing populism, I saw a similar sentiment being echoed – a welfare state is needed so the working-class does not shift to radical to socialism and communism.
The libertarian focus on complete and total opposition to welfare must be replaced with a more qualified understanding that looks at intent. There is a distinction to be drawn from the type of welfarism of a Bismarck or a rightwing New Dealer, like Fr. Coughlin or George Wallace, and that found in the Great Society or the leftwing New Dealers. The former seeks to use the state to take away one of the major appeals of socialism and protect the family from the ravages of the market, which conservatives, unlike Lockeans who only think they are conservative, recognize as the basic building block of society. The latter sees welfare as a way to build towards socialism and replace the family with the state. Failing to draw a distinction between the two lead the Right to cede far too much ground and split the largely socially conservative working-class, which strengthened the Left.
This is why it is so important for conservatives to embrace, as has been done in Poland and Hungary, allowances for each child a family has. To my mind, no Dixian Nationalist program will be complete without a policy to encourage Dixian parents to have more children. The ghastliness of “I support abortion to cull the number of blacks and Hispanics” found in certain corners of the Right aside, it ignores that the problem with the declining percentage of whites in the U.S. is not due to insurmountable birthrates by blacks and Hispanics, those have been around replacement levels for years before collapsing to well below replacement levels recently. Immigration is certainly a factor, too, but the single biggest factor, and the one that has been used to justify immigration, has been the complete and total collapse of the white birthrate. Today, we find ourselves in an emergency situation where we are becoming (and in some areas already are) a minority in our own land, and libertarian or Chamber of Commerce thumb twiddling about “big government” won’t save us. “Limited government” and “fidelity to the free market” are not my country, Dixie is. No Dixian children means no Dixie. If per child allowances are needed to assure more Dixian children, then so be it.
None of this means I’ve become some kind of egalitarian. I would fully support a policy that grants a four month grace period for welfare, but after that you can remain on welfare but will not be able to vote until you are off of it, though you can stay on as long as you want with the child credit and elderly pension being exempted from this. I do realize that what the Chamber of Commerce and libertarian intellectuals want is not necessarily conservative. They were certainly wrong about national economic health being linked to Amazon’s economic health, and they are wrong about welfare being leftist by its nature. It can, and has been, used for rightwing ends – men as diverse as Otto von Bismarck to George Wallace saw this. Wallace, in particular, debated William F. Buckley over this very issue. Unlike Buckley, who considered the state his enemy, Wallace looked at something that could, if used well, benefit the socially conservative working-class.
The Right spent years going down the Buckley path and it got us in the situation in which we now find ourselves. Welfare reform was passed, but that failed to stop the destruction of the historical America and, in particular, the dismantling of Dixian history. We still lost Maryland and Virginia and are close to losing Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. South Carolina and Tennessee will follow next. We now even have literal communist rioting and nothing is being done to stop it. Express what would have been a normie opinion in 1990 and you can be fired, but don’t expect a social safety net – that right there is communism. Dogmatic anti-welfarism got the Right nothing, it’s time to rethink it.
Bismarck understood this and so did George Wallace, albeit with a more populist bent. The welfare state need not mean a stepping stone to socialism or the replacement of the family, there is a tradition, ranging from Imperial Germany to Dixie to modern Poland that has used the welfare state for conservative ends, any Dixian Nationalist program, considering the challenges that lay before us, cannot ignore this legacy.
-By Harmonica
O I’m a good old rebel, now that’s just what I am. For this “fair land of freedom” I do not care at all. I’m glad I fit against it, I only wish we’d won, And I don’t want no pardon for anything I done.
The current situation is that about half the black population and as much as one-sixth of the white population are not capable of providing for themselves in our post-industrial economy. Welfare is the only humane way of dealing with them.
… democracy is mob tyranny as the factions vie for “gibs” at the expense of the other factions and the elites grift on the wealth transfers to those who refiuse to work such as themselves, it was the purpose of the Hart-Cellar Act:
“When the (factions) of the people find that they can vote themselves money/largess (from the public trough) that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
My major issue w getting $ from the gunbermint is they have more control over you if they pay you
I get the articles point and don’t disagree per se’ but the fewer tentacles I have attaching me to it the better
Let’s face it, welfare in any form is now a form of social engineering. It’s pretty obvious that the straight white christian family is the enemy, there will be no welfare for us.
Govt was never a primary help until the 20th century. It was a smart move of control. Obviously, in-groups helped, whether family or extended family, local village, religious groups, etc. Now we’re so separated that those barely exist. A massive collapse will re-invigorate those by necessity. So that’s hopeful.
Charity should always be, and should have always been, 100% funded by private donations. Government-funded (taxpayer funded) ‘welfare’ is theft, and income redistribution is wicked, vile, and anti-Christian. I attend church with a grown, 38 year-old man who is neither mentally nor physically incompetent, who just fathered a child with his 25 year-old wife. He cannot, and apparently will not hold a job, in spite of the fact many companies in the area are begging for workers. His mother recently complained to my wife that he was not getting enough ‘gubment’ benefits. If he was a man, he would work TWO JOBS to support his family, if need be. I have no tolerance or empathy for such a person. The government welfare state is satanic.
AMEN Mr Powell!
Sorry about being “late to the party,” y’all, but I have been working daylight to dark, trying to finish ‘last minute’ Christmas Projects for several of my friends and acquaintances. In any case,…
I will gladly lend my assent to Anthony Powell’s take on welfare, per se. I think Harmonica’s view is interesting and worth putting more thought to, but deficient at the end of the day, and for the reasons Mr. Powell iterates. I would also add to Mr. Powell’s reasoning that “welfare” should always be administered at the local level, and never from “on high.”
This issue has been discussed dozens and dozens of times between yours truly and others on the dissident right for years; I’m not saying my mind can’t be changed by good reasoning and good argumentation; I am saying, however, that to change my mind on the subject would take a heap of a lot of persuadin’ that I’m doubtful anyone here can meet.
As Mr. Powell iterates, he “knows” an undeserving welfare recipient. I happen to personally know several such persons myself; put me on a “board” tasked with determining who is “deserving” and who not of receiving welfare benefits, and I can assure you, two-thirds, at least (at least; that is a low estimate), of current welfare recipients in my area would be ‘up the creek without a paddle come next ‘pay period.’ What would be their fate? Well, they’d have to find gainful employment, first and foremost. But perhaps more importantly, they’d have to find other ways of spending their “income” than shoving it down a slot machine or purchasing dollar lottery tickets at the local convenience store.
Again, I know who several of these people are in my area; put me on the board for administering “welfare” subsidies, and I will be sure to cut these unnecessary expenditures out, quick, fast, and in a hurry.
Well, I agree we need more Dixian babies but I deny that gibs is the way to do it. Gibs in exchange for sterilization would be a better way to manage the problem populations. Charity is the Church’s job anyway. Ironicall, the ppl who claim to want separation of church and state usually want to the state to play church with welfare programs.
Here is a recipe to get the birth rate up without gibs:
1) bar women from medical, dental, pharmacy, chiropractic, veterinary and law schools, or anything else beyond a BA/BS degree.
2) permit companies to discriminate against women in the workplace wherever they find it profitable to do so.
3) bar women from military except perhaps for some niche roles.
4) legally recognize husband as head of family. (This would have countless “little” ramifications that would add up like you would not believe.)
5) end no-fault divorce.
6) license churches to do an Internet porn censorship ministry at church expense, or simply tag it with an ad of their choice so that the porn viewer has to watch a message from the church first.
7) license churches to censor affair finder websites.
8) include anti-feminist, pro-family narrative in public education and possibly short ads on tv or internet (see #6)
9) simply let nature run its course. Human evolution is happening right under our noses. Women who are recalcitrant to feminism have more children; those who are susceptible have fewer. It’s a self limiting problem in the long run, but it is doing plenty of damage in the meantime.
There are more possibilities that would cost little to nothing, but some ppl would want to fight me over them so I’ll stop with these. Of those listed 1-7 wouldn’t cost a cent (some would save money) and the cost of #8 would be negligible.
And counterintuitively, I suspect taking away welfare for unwed mothers might raise the birth rate. How? It would encourage them to stick with the man that got them pregnant the first time. She can get resources from a husband, a job or welfare, and only one of those three will give her more baby seed.
Some good points, although to be a little autistic, I don’t know if I’d necessarily say George Wallace was super pro New Deal though. I don’t think he was strongly against it or strongly for it. In this clip (https://t.me/c/1485600678/117871) he clearly identifies himself in opposition to FDR, and identifies himself with the more old school Democrats of Jefferson/Jackson. And this would’ve been the position of many conservative Dixiecrats of the early 1900s.
Interesting article, and thought provoking comments. Thanks.