The Statist Narrative

It's time to reevaluate the statist narrative. Upton Sinclair was one of the first creators of the statist narrative. Sinclair's novel, The Jungle, exposed unsanitary meat packing conditions in Chicago in the very early 20th century, inspired by a socialist concern for workers and a hatred of capitalism. Socialism was being promoted by many European immigrants along this time, and Teddy Roosevelt, the charismatic progressive, was happy to use the state to begin solving societal problems. Even Roosevelt's progressive fixes weren't enough for the likes of Sinclair who wanted capitalism to pay dearly and socialism to take its place. The idea was spreading that the state is necessary to protect the powerless, the unprivileged and disadvantaged -- the corresponding idea was that workers and poor should be empowered to fight the wealthy capitalists.

It wasn't much later that the Russian Revolution took place, adding to the narrative of the rise of the workers and demise of capitalism. WWI created an elevation of the idea of state all across the world -- states became more fully formed, differentiated and powerful. 20th century in America brought about the rise of the state and a powerful interventionist government, leaving the idea of a limited government far behind as an antiquated idea insufficient for modern times.

The statist narrative tells us that capitalism fails to deal with society's most pressing problems like poverty, education, infrastructure, equality, justice, health and safety, so a strong and active government is vital to provide services and redistribute wealth from those able to amass wealth to those in need. In America it wasn't the simple Marxist idea of moving from capitalism to socialism to communism, it was more or less an idea of fairness, spurred by compassion -- except during the Great Depression, when FDR decided that the state had to save the nation, then it appeared that the state was also vital in financial crises to stimulate the economy and spur growth. But, in our good times, the statist idea is that the government must take from those who have in order to assist those who don't have, and this is how a wealthy nation should take care of it own.

Many of our novels and Hollywood movies have repeatedly told this story of evil, rich capitalists oppressing, in one way or another, those who aren't rich. This story is part of the American mind. Because of FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, and many, many progressive politicians who've used this narrative to gain political power, the American mind was impressed with the state's role in enforcing justice, protecting the powerless and providing a safety net so that people aren't lost in the Hobbesian jungle of capitalism. The underdogs in society are given a helping hand by the beneficent state to fight against greed and capitalist corruption.

The statist narrative which rests on the reality of the state safety net has hidden the many problems which come about as the result of a powerful state. History has revealed the horrors of powerful nation-states, in Russia, Germany, China, and others, but we've always felt secure in the knowledge that our Constitution will protect us from these misuses of power, and for the most part we've avoided the horrible results of too much state power.

We never went the route into full socialism, but we created a mixed economy that people, for the most part, have learned to live with (and, of which, many have taken advantage to gain their own special interest power) -- part state intervention, part capitalism. The questions for the present, and going forward into the future, relate to whether we've gone too far in the direction of state intervention? What would America have been like if we had relied more on private solutions to social problems? Can America now rely on private solutions as the state becomes more and more overburdened and we lose more and more of our freedoms? Was there another narrative, a capitalist/free market/libertarian/private sector narrative, which didn't get as much attention through the years, that now needs to be revised and told in the light of the 21st century?

I think so. I'll be writing about this for the next week or so.