Mead 7
The four issues differ in political style and level. The two styles I call scale-of-government
versus dependency. The first focuses on impersonal questions of public commitment and values, the
second on more personal issues of responsibility and competence. Due to mobilization of bias, the
questions raised by each style tend to drive out those raised by the other. Scale-of-government
debate is about justice or fairness among citizens whose character and capacities are presumed.
Conversely, dependency debate is about the proper morals and capacities of citizens, where justice in
more impersonal senses is presumed. These issues play out on two political levels, basic principles
versus concrete conditions. Figure 1 displays the four issues in terms of these two dimensions:
Figure 1: Themes of welfare politics
Political Style:
Scale-of-government
Dependency
Political level:
Basic principles
Progressive
Obligation
Concrete conditions
Opportunity
Paternalist
Progressive and opportunity issues share a concern with the role of government; a lack of
opportunity is one rationale for more public intervention. But progressivism tends to be debated in
terms of broad principles, opportunity in more practical terms, about whether it is possible for poor
adults to work. Similarly, obligation and paternalist disputes share a focus on personal responsibility
and competence; the question is what the poor can reasonably be expected to do. But obligation is
debated in terms of principles, paternalism in terms of the specifics of welfare reform programs,
such as child care, work incentives, or child support requirements.
All four issues provoke division between liberals and conservatives, but the positions taken by
the two sides shift depending on the issue. On progressive issues, the liberal position favors doing
“more” and federalization, the conservative doing “less” and devolution. On obligation, liberals
defend entitlement (giving aid without behavioral conditions) while conservatives demand work
tests or “reciprocity.” On opportunity, liberals judge that barriers to employment do not permit the
Convention