I was asked to speak on the subject, "Issues Facing Social
welfare Today." However, in order to keep within the time limit
which your director thoughtfully emphasized to me, I have taken
the liberty of limiting my talk to "Some Issues Facing
Social welfare Today."
Before undertaking to discuss these issues, I presume it is only
fair that I should attempt some sort of definition of the term "social
welfare." However, I must confess I found it impossible to
establish the precise metes and bounds within which to confine social
welfare, because by its very nature social welfare is a dynamic
concept dependent entirely upon our evolving ideas of the responsibility
of community and State in affirmatively promoting the well-being
of its members. As our sense of social responsibility develops,
our concept of social welfare must inevitably grow. At one time,
not so long ago, our concept of social welfare included almost exclusively
relief and service to the underprivileged and the disadvantaged.
Our concept was based upon the spirit of noblesse oblige. Our attention
was focused upon the needs of the specific individual rather than
upon the social institutions, the presence or absence of which affected
the needs of individuals. Social welfare was thought of largely
in terms of adjusting the individual to his environment rather than
in terms of bringing environmental forces into play to assist the
individual.
The newer concept of social welfare, as I view it, is that it consists
not only of counseling and assisting the individual and family in
making the necessary adjustments to environment, but more importantly,
it consists of marshaling community resources to promote the well-being
of individuals and of families generally. In other words, we do
not think any longer in terms of a few underprivileged and disadvantaged
persons, but we think in terns of all individuals and families.
We think not in terms of "cure" or even "prevention"
but in affirmative terms of actively promoting well-being rather
than simply avoiding ill-being.
The new concept of social work would include not only constructive
welfare services of the affirmative character I have just mentioned,
but in my opinion would include measures designed to promote economic
security as well. Therefore, I would include in social work not
only what we have come to call in this country "public assistance"
but also the social insurances. In other countries it would also
include measures which do not fall under the heading of either public
assistance or social insurance. I refer to children's allowances,
family allowances and similar payments based upon the status of
the individual rather than upon present need or past contributions
of the individuals. In other words, I would include social security
in the modern concept of social welfare.
Naturally in a democracy based upon a system of free enterprise
we must undertake to promote the well-being of individuals in such
a way as to strengthen our democracy and our system of free enterprise.
Many people have sincerely felt that social action to help individuals
weakens rather than strengthens the fabric of democracy and free
enterprise because they fear that it weakens individual initiative.
But if social welfare continues in the future as it has in the past
to recognize that the basic purpose of social action is to enable
individuals to achieve their maximum potentialities, such fears
are groundless.
More than 100 years ago that arch advocate of laissez-faire, John
Stuart Mill, in his essay "On Liberty" said that "Energy
and self-dependence are as likely to be impaired by the absence
of help as by its excess." But I am sure that some people will
immediately protest that these fears that social welfare will lead
to increased dependence rather than increased independence on the
part of the individual are far from groundless in this country,
certainly so far as governmental action in the field of social welfare
is concerned. They will point to the fact that today in America
there are almost 5-1/2 million individuals dependent upon the government
for public assistance to meet their daily needs. They Will point
out that public assistance is costing the Federal, State and local
governments almost 2-1/2 billion dollars, and this in a period of
unprecedented prosperity and full employment. Therefore, how can
anyone say that public action in the field of social welfare has
promoted rather than discouraged individual and family responsibility?
I am frank to say that I find no satisfaction in the fact that
there are these millions of persons in need of public assistance.
However, I do believe that the fact that public assistance is available
to these millions of persons means that we have a better America
today than we had a quarter of a century ago, and that these individuals
are leading far happier and more useful lives as members of their
community than they could otherwise have led.
If there had been in effect in this country during the last quarter
of a century a system of contributory social insurance covering
the inevitable mayor economic hazards of life these millions of
persons would be receiving insurance benefits rather than public
assistance. But before I discuss the relative advantages of contributory
social insurance as compared with public assistance I should like
to give you some facts as to public assistance which I believe it
is essential to know if we are to act intelligently concerning some
of the issues arising in the field of public assistance.
It has been asserted many times in the public press that we are
spending more for public aid (or "relief", as it is usually
called) today than we spent in 1940 when there were probably 8 million
persons unemployed. As a matter of fact, we are spending considerably
less in actual dollars even though these dollars buy far less of
the necessities of life. Those who have contended that expenditures
for public aid have increased singe 1940 have failed to take into
account that in 1940 we still had in effect in this country the
WPA, the NYA and the CCC, all of which, as you know, provided assistance
on the basis of need.
Another serious mistake that is made by those who contend that
expenditures for public aid have increased is that they fail to
take into account the fact that the population has increased, particularly
in the groups under 18 years of age and over 65 years of age, where
need is the greatest. Thus, while the number of persons receiving
old-age assistance has increased greatly since 1940, the number
of old-age assistance recipients per thousand aged persons in this
country has decreased.
It is true that the number of children receiving aid to dependent
children has increased, not only in absolute numbers but also relative
to the population under 18 years of age. That is a circumstance
that I think should give us concern and I will discuss its implications
in a moment. However, if we take all forms of public aid in existence
in 1940 and in existence today, we find that 3.8 percent of the
population is dependent on some form of public aid today as compared
with 11.5 percent in 1940. We also find we are spending 1-1/10 cents
out of every dollar of our notional income for public aid today,
as compared with 3-4/10 cents in 1940.
Probably the worst mistake that is made in comparing expenditures
for public aid in 1940, when there was wide-spread unemployment,
with such expenditures today when there is full employment, is the
failure to take into account the characteristics of the persons
receiving such aid. We must not forget that under the various public
assistance titles of the Social Security Act only the very young,
the very old, the blind, and now the permanently and totally disabled,
are eligible for public assistance. It should be obvious that these
groups in our population cannot, for the most part (and in the case
of children should not) engage in gainful employment. In other words,
as the number of such persons in the population increases, it is
obvious that the potential public assistance load will increase,
regardless of improved employment conditions.
As I said a moment ago, it is a fact that the number of children
receiving aid to dependent children has increased not only in absolute
numbers but also relative to the population under 18 years of age.
This is in spite of the fact that under old-age and survivors insurance
there are approximately 800,000 orphans or partial orphans who are
receiving children's benefits. A large proportion of these orphans
now receiving insurance benefits should of course have been entitled
to aid to dependent children. The result is that only about one-fifth
of the children now receiving aid to dependent children are orphans.
In other words, most of the children now receiving aid to dependent
children are children who are in need because of the incapacity
of a living parent or the absence from the home of a living parent.
Putting it even more specifically, we find that in about two-fifths
of the cases the need of the child has arisen from the fact that
the father has deserted the mother or is not married to the mother
or is absent from the home for other reasons. Undoubtedly it is
this circumstance that has given rise to the charge that aid to
dependent children has encouraged desertion and illegitimacy. I
do not believe that this charge can be sustained. Desertion and
illegitimacy have been with us for a long time and unfortunately
they may be on the increase. But all the evidence, as well as the
informed judgment of persons familiar with the facts, indicates
the aid to dependent children represents not the cause but the effect
of desertion and illegitimacy. It is an amazing fact that in only
22 percent of the cases of desertion and illegitimacy does the mother
actually seek aid for her dependent children.
It is also significant to note that the increase in the proportion
of families receiving aid to dependent children, where there is
an illegitimate child in the family, has been considerably less
than the increase in illegitimacy rates estimated by the Office
of Vital Statistics for the population as a whole. It is also encouraging
to note that in the last year and a half, the aid to dependent children
caseload has been declining steadily. However, there will continue
to be hundreds of thousands of children receiving this form of public
assistance and a considerable proportion of these children will
be in broken homes. This places a great responsibility upon not
only the public officials who administer aid to dependent children
but upon all social agencies, public and private alike, to aid these
children so that they may not be disadvantaged because of circumstances
beyond their control.
It is somewhat encouraging to note that for the last year and half
there has been a steady decline in the total number of public assistance
recipients and a generally downward trend in assistance expenditures.
So far as old-age assistance is concerned, a considerable part of
the decline is due to the 1950 legislative improvements in the Federal
old-age and survivors insurance system. However, continued high
employment, which provides greater employment opportunities for
persons receiving assistance and increases the ability of relatives
to assist, is probably the chief factor. But even though there has
been this decline and even though there is a valid explanation of
why in spite of this decline we still have almost 5-1/2 million
persons receiving public assistance in this country, the fact remains
that nobody is happy about the situation. The taxpayers of the country
certainly are not happy. They make their dissatisfaction quite vocal
in the public press and in legislative bodies. We do not hear so
much about the unhappiness of the recipients of public assistance.
However, those of us charged with the, responsibility of administering
public assistance are acutely aware of the fact that the recipients
do not relish being the recipients of public assistance. There has
been much talk about chiselers on relief rolls. Much of this criticism
does not distinguish between legal and illegal payments. That is
to say, in some States the criticism has been directed at the failure
of relatives to help their less fortunate relations when, under
the laws of these States, the relatives in question have no legal
obligation to do so. In fact in one or two States there is an absolute
prohibition against even requesting a relative to help.
Likewise in some States there has been criticism that persons owning
a home or having some other small assets are receiving public assistance,
when under the laws and regulations such ownership is permitted.
In fact in some of these States, at the same time that there is
this criticism about paying public assistance to persons who still
have some assets there is also criticism that public assistance
penalizes thrift because people with some small assets are no better
off than those who have none.
But whether there is any considerable number of persons on the
public assistance rolls illegally, the feeling that there are too
many persons on the rolls has led to considerable demand that public
assistance rolls be made public. The contention, as nearly as I
can understand it, is that making the public assistance rolls public
will scare off the persons receiving public assistance illegally
and will sufficiently shame the relatives of those who are legally
receiving public assistance so that they will meet their moral responsibilities.
Of course this contention rests for its validity on whether there
actually are a large number of persons illegally receiving public
assistance and whether relatives can be shamed into providing assistance.
Curiously enough, the fact that there has been a considerable decline
in general assistance, in which the Federal Government does not
participate, has been advanced as proof of the soundness of the
foregoing contention. That is to say, it has been contended that
Federal financial participation and the Federal statutory requirement
that the public assistance rolls be kept confidential, has led to
the alleged increase in the categories financed in part by the Federal
Government, as contrasted with the decline in the general assistance
category, where there is no Federal financial participation or Federal
requirement as to confidentiality. However, this argument overlooks
the basic reason for the decline in general assistance since 1940,
namely, that the general assistance category had a far greater proportion
of employable persons in it than the other categories of aged persons,
young children, blind and permanently disabled persons for which
there is Federal financial participation. Incidentally, it also
overlooks the fact that under the Social Security Act Amendments
of 1950, a large number of persons were transformed from general
assistance to the new category of the permanently and totally disabled
for which there is now Federal financial participation.
It is even more interesting to note that most of the local alleged
scandals relative to chiselers have dealt with general assistance
as distinguished from the categories for which Federal grants are
made. So far as I know, the highest proportion of persons shown
by any State-wide study to be illegally receiving public assistance
under categories financed in part by the Federal Government has
been less than 3 percent.
As regards publicity reducing the number of chiselers and shaming
relatives the Welfare Directors of several States have stated that
such publicity in connection with general assistance has had no
effect as regards eliminating chiselers but may have resulted in
eligible persons in real need being deterred from accepting assistance.
However, as you know, a rider was attached to the Revenue Act of
1951 which has the effect of permitting States to allow public access
to records of the disbursement of public assistance funds. It should
be noted that this legislation permits only access to records of
disbursements, such as the names of recipients, the amounts paid
to such recipients and the dates paid. It does not permit public
access to other information contained in case records. Moreover,
the Federal law requires that if a State does enact legislation
prescribing any conditions under which public access may be had
to records of disbursements, such legislation must prohibit the
use of any lists or names obtained from such access for commercial
or political purposes.
I regret to say that I think there has been a great deal of misunderstanding
relative to the Federal statutory requirement concerning confidentiality
of public assistance records. This requirement has never been interpreted
as surrounding these records with an iron curtain of secrecy which
would prevent the taxpayers from having the requisite assurance
that ineligible persons were not receiving public assistance. It
has never prevented information being furnished to Federal, State
and local legislative committees and administrative bodies charged
with investigating and appraising the operations of public assistance
as well as to auditors, law enforcement officers and to grand juries
for use in the discharge of any duties they have to perform as regards
the administration of public assistance.
Neither has this requirement of the Social Security Act prevented
the publication of information concerning the operations of public
assistance agencies designed to inform the public regarding such
matters as the size of expenditures, classification of the causes
of dependency, the range in payments made, the standards for appraising
need, and the procedures followed for determining need in the individual
case.
It is perhaps well to recall that the Federal requirement as regards
confidentiality was placed in the Social Security Act in 1939 because
there had been wide-spread political misuse of the names of recipients
of old-age assistance in the 1938 elections. It remains to be seen
whether legislation permitting public access but which prohibits
the use of information obtained through such access for commercial
or political purposes will actually prevent the abuses that occurred
prior to 1939.
The extent to which opening the public assistance rolls to the
public will have any effect in the reduction of such rolls is also
still a matter of conjecture. But of one thing I am certain we shall
never be able to measure statistically how much needless humiliation
results from indiscriminate public access. More than 100 years ago
Disraeli opened his first successful campaign for election as a
member of the House of Commons by attacking the new Poor Law because,
as he said "it went on the principle that relief to the
poor is a charity. I maintain that it is a right . . . I consider
that this Act has disgraced the country more than any other upon
record. Both a moral crime and a political blunder, it announces
to the world that in England poverty is a crime."
One of our own homespun philosophers, who used to write under the
pen-name of Abe Martin, once said, before the advent of the Social
Security Act: "Poverty ain't a crime in America but it might
as well be." I am confident that we are not going to return
to those days. As some evidence, I cite the fact that in two States
where the public assistance rolls have been opened to the public,
there have been very few persons who have actually sought access.
I am also sure of another thing, and that is that there is no substitute
for good administration. By good administration I mean administration
which on the one hand protects the taxpayer through careful examination
of the facts bearing on eligibility, and on the other hand provides
needed assistance to the recipient in such a manner as to encourage
self respect, a sense of responsibility and effective participation
in the life of the community. But ironically enough, many times
the same people who complain about ineligible persons receiving
public assistance also object to providing funds to employ a sufficient
number of trained persons to make the necessary investigations.
I think perhaps the best comment I have seen on this whole question
of relief chiseling was in a small newspaper in the middle-west:
"We've had many families among us needing public
assistance for a long time. And no matter what decision
comes down from the court, they'll still be with us.
"They are not an isolated people, those who receive
monthly checks representing aid to the blind and aid to
dependent children. They are of us--of our neighborhoods,
of our churches, of our schools.
"They are not statistics on a state welfare department
report or the financial records, red or black, of Monroe
county. They are people.
"It is well, as we wade into the attached problems,
or run away from them, to remember that. They are people--just
as good, just as bad, just as weak, just as strong, just
as honest and just as dishonest as people are at every economic,
political and social level.
"It can be conceded that some families receiving public
assistance, in cash or in kind, cheat. They cheat just like
some rich people who chisel on their income tax returns
or exploit their employees or give too little to the churches
in which they pray.
"The problem of weeding them out is one extolling
for capable administration of the welfare procedures, as
well as one calling for an acceptance of responsibility
and duty by the average citizen.
"For example, the welfare departments of our counties
find no shortage of complaints about mothers or fathers--or
both--slopping up ADC checks in beer houses. But they find
a shortage of complaining witnesses to act when action is
essential.
''It can be conceded that for some families the ADC checks
destroy initiative. Even though they merit the checks, they
show little inclination to accept opportunities which might
eventually move them off the welfare rolls. This is a problem
calling for rehabilitation along with routine administration--and
again it goes to the door of the school, the church and
the average citizen as well as to the door of the welfare
office in the Monroe county court house or to the one in
the state house.
"By and large, however, the public assistance handed
out in Monroe county is put to essential uses--it goes to
children who have lost fathers by death or desertion, it
goes to children whose fathers are physically disabled,
it goes to children who are far better off having their
mothers at hone than they would be--or society would be--if
their mothers couldn't maintain homes. Who will be first
to abandon them." |
It may be some consolation to know that this problem of providing
assistance to the needy was also a problem confronting our colonial
fore-fathers. There came to my desk the other day a very interesting
little pamphlet issued By the Virginia League of Local Welfare Executives.
This League was enterprising enough to look into "The Vestry
Book of Kingston Parish" covering the period 1679-1796. The
medium of exchange during most of that period was tobacco. The Vestry
met once a year and made appropriations in pounds of tobacco to
provide for the needs of the parish. The Vestry records show that
the majority of the items listed each year were for the assistance
of individuals in need of help. The League comments that George
Washington, being a member of the Vestry in his Parish, doubtless
participated in making these awards. Let me quote a few excerpts
from the League's interesting little pamphlet, as follows:
"A number of examples
are given in each category to show the variety of situations
which the Vestry had to consider. Each has its present day
counterpart. It appears that there are a number of bastards
under care in foster hones at all times . . . It was noted
that awards were made year after year to the same persons
in many instances. For example an award was made for the
care of Oner Powers every year for 33 years and the final
award was for his care and burial. Evidently both temporary
and permanent care were available to the destitute widows,
orphans, fatherless, lame, halt, etc. Sometimes the founding
fathers slipped up. In one instance, in the case of Anne
Owens an award of 200 pounds of tobacco per year for several
years was made to pay her rent. Then one year an award of
400 pounds was made to build her a house. Subsequently she
appeared on the record of awards for several years for the
score 200 pounds to pay her rent."
The League reaches this conclusion as regards the cost
of public welfare today as compared with colonial times:
"Thus in the hundred years preceding the revolution,
the number of taxable persons had increased 12 times, total
expenditures had increased 23 times and the tax per person
had increased about 100 percent. And of all things!! the
expenditure per capita for relief was approximately the
same as it was in Virginia for the year 1949-50 when the
Federal government was paying one-third of the bill.'' |
But in colonial days the problem of want was quite
different than it is today. Today we have a highly competitive,
urbanized and industrialized economic system. It has enabled us
as a nation to increase our output of goods and services beyond
the wildest dreams of our forefathers. But paradoxically enough,
it has also given rise to greater economic insecurity on the part
of millions of individuals. Time will not permit me to discuss
the reasons for this paradox. But the facts that I have presented
to you in connection with public assistance speak for themselves.
We must find a way to prevent the destitution of
millions of persons rather then undertake to alleviate it after
it has occurred. Fortunately there is a way to prevent destitution
arising from economic causes. That is the device of contributory
social insurance. It is not a new and untried device. It has been
used for three-quarters of a century in various parts of the world.
That outstanding conservative, Winston Churchill, was one of the
chief architects of the plan that went into effect in Great Britain
in 1909. It was the same Winston Churchill who took the first
steps toward putting into effect the famous Beveridge plan which
greatly expanded the British social insurance system. In so doing
he stated that it was simply a method for bringing the magic of
the averages to the rescue of the millions. He pointed out that
economic hazards which could not be met effectively by the individual
could be met through a system of contributory social insurance.
Under such a system, all individuals exposed to those hazards
are insured against loss of income out of a fund to which they
and their employers contributed. In other words, it is a method
of insurance to spread income over periods of non-earning as well
as over periods of earnings.
We in this country have had a form of contributory
social insurance since 1911, when the first workmen's compensation
laws were passed. Since 1935 we have had social insurance covering
unemployment and old-age. In 1939 the Federal old-age system was
expanded to include survivors benefits in the case of the death
of the insured worker. However, unfortunately those various forms
of social insurance did not cover all of the gainfully employed
persons of this country and the benefits provided were quite inadequate
especially in the light of the increased cost of living. Last
year Congress considerably extended the coverage of the Federal
old-age and survivors insurance system and increased the benefits
provided thereunder. As you know, regularly employed domestic
workers are now included, and also urban self-employed persons.
The only large groups still unprotected are farm operators and
casual farm and domestic workers. So today, about 90 percent of
the gainfully occupied persons in this country are insured against
loss of income due to old age and premature death under this Federal
old-age and survivors insurance system or under other Federal,
State and local retirement systems.
I think it will also interest you to know that about
750,000 employees of non-profit organizations are insured. You
will recall that non-profit organizations were not required to
be insured under this system but could elect to do so, if two-thirds
of their employees desire to be insured. It seems to me that this
is evidence of the great appeal that a system of contributory
social insurance has (as well as evidence of the good business
judgment of non-profit organizations and their employees).
Of course, the great distinguishing characteristic
between a system of contributory social insurance and a system
of public assistance is that the insurance benefits are payable
without a means test. The means test is a necessary device to
keep the cost of public assistance within bounds. I believe that
social workers generally are applying it sympathetically and in
such a way as to encourage self-reliance to the maximum extent
possible. However, I do not believe there is anyone who likes
the means test or believes that standing by itself it is a constructive
device in promoting self-reliance and effective participation
in the life of a community. I am inclined to believe that the
basic repugnance to the means test arises out of the fact that
to the recipient it signifies failure on his part or on the part
of his family to make the grade in a highly competitive economy
where financial independence is the test of success. Another reason
why it is generally disliked is that it is considered by many
as placing a penalty upon thrift since any savings must be taken
into account in determining need.
In contrast, the benefits under contributory social
insurance are payable in specified amounts regardless of the actual
amount of property a recipient may possess. Moreover, these benefits
under our American system of social insurance vary in accordance
with wage loss. It is true that a larger proportion of the wage
loss is payable in the case of low wage earners than in the case
of high wage earners. Nevertheless, the fact that there is a relationship
between wage loss and benefits introduces an element of flexibility
which automatically relates the benefits to the wide differentials
that exist in this country and which, of course, is characteristic
of a system of free enterprise.
A contributory social insurance system in effect
throughout the entire nation and covering all of the major economic
hazards would largely solve the problem of destitution in this
country. However, we must not overlook the fact that considerable
destitution is due to non-economic causes. For example it would
certainly not be practical or desirable to have a social insurance
system insure against loss of income arising out of broken homes.
Neither is it possible for a social insurance system to cover
actual need of all individuals and families under all conceivable
circumstances. Social insurance, after all, is more in the nature
of a gigantic group insurance policy rather than in the nature
of individual insurance policies.
What I am trying to say is that we would be deceiving
ourselves if we did not recognize that, even with the extension
and improvement in social insurance as a first line of defense
against destitution there would still be need for a second line
of defense in the form of public assistance. However, I believe
that this second line of defense would be far less costly and
significant than it is today. As a consequence I believe that
there would be far greater opportunity for us to direct our attention
to providing constructive social services.
I do not believe that either contributory social
insurance or public assistance can be depended upon to solve non-economic
problems such as recreational needs, illegitimacy, broken homes,
juvenile delinquency, the problems of the aging and the religious
needs of people generally. It is for that reason that I believe
it is absolutely essential that private welfare agencies as well
as public welfare agencies be encouraged to strengthen their services.
Raymond Hilliard said some time ago, in speaking of the role of
private agencies, when he was still a public official:
"Instead of having a vanishing function,
the private agencies have a crucial role to play in exploring
emerging social needs in a society which is changing rapidly,
and at some points alarmingly, and in channeling across to public
planning the experienced judgment arising out of this pioneering.
Private welfare activities are not subject to the institutional
lag that has characterized and must necessarily characterize governmental
developments in a democracy"
I am afraid that most of what I have said is old
stuff to this informed audience. Sometimes I have the unhappy
feeling that we who are concerned with social welfare spend too
much time in talking to ourselves rather than to our fellow citizens
generally. We cannot expect citizens generally to be as familiar
as we are with what we consider to be basic principles of social
welfare, nor can we expect citizens generally to be as familiar
as we are with social needs.
I am afraid that all too often we fail to meet our
responsibilities in reporting to our constituency or at least
reporting in an intelligible fashion. As a matter of fact, speaking
within the family, I am even somewhat concerned that such a degree
of specialization has grown up within the field of social welfare
that our internal communications, so to speak, have also broken
down.
I was glad to note that the Committee on Future
Program has recommended that there be created a Committee on Public
Information. I was also interested to note that the Committee
urges that the Assembly establish a Committee on Social Welfare
Data and Issues. It seems to me that it is absolutely essential
that there be some agency representing all points of view and
all interests in the field of social welfare which can be depended
upon to assemble the necessary data and to present the pros and
cons of the issues in the field of social welfare. As the Committee
indicates, any action on an issue would be taken by national organizations
or local communities through their individual initiative.
I was also much interested to note that the Committee
on Future Program suggests a Committee on International Social
Welfare. I have no doubt that most of you here today have participated
in one may or another with the tremendous international activity
that is now going on in the field of social welfare. Thousands
of fellows have come to this country from other countries to study
our social welfare agencies and institutions. Hundreds of American
workers in the field of social welfare have gone abroad to serve
as advisors on social welfare matters. This international activity
is of course far less well-known than international activity in
the field of diplomacy and military preparedness. Nonetheless,
it is an absolute essential in promoting sympathy and understanding
among the peoples of the world, and in promoting constructive
social action, upon which the welfare of the peoples of the world
depends.
It goes without saying that the nations of the world
need to establish the necessary political relationships. It also
goes without saying that in the world as it exists today it is
necessary for us to establish military alliances between the free
nations of the world. However, in the long run, world peace cannot
be achieved unless we make visible progress in solving the problem
of world misery. Solving the problem of world-wide misery depends
upon improving not only the economic organization of under-developed
countries, but their social organization as well.
As a matter of fact, when I started thinking of
what was involved in the subject assigned to me I could not help
feeling that basically the issues facing social welfare today
in America are the same issues facing democracy throughout the
world. That is to say, the goal of social welfare and the goal
of democracy are identical: namely, equal opportunity and the
good life for every human being regardless of race, creed or color.
I think we in America are sometimes inclined to
forget what a revolutionary concept democracy really is and how
young it is. We used to think this idea originated with the ancient
Greeks and Romans but we now know that their concept of democracy
was essentially an aristocratic one.
But hardly more than 150 years ago the idea of liberty,
equality, and fraternity for everyone captured the imagination
of our forefathers. What is more, they proceeded to act to make
that idea a reality. However, until fairly recently most of the
people in the world had not the slightest awareness that there
was such an idea in existence and certainly had no realization
of its significance for them or their children.
We hear a great deal about the tremendous implications
of the atomic bomb. However, I think we sometimes fail to realize
that even though the atomic bomb had never been developed this
last war we fought has released psychological forces which, when
coupled with widespread human misery and want, have set off "chain
reactions" literally world-wide in their extent.
There are many isms and ideologies with different
names that are sweeping across the face of the globe. However,
they all have the same professed aim--the improvement of the lot
of the common man. The great distinguishing characteristic of
democracy is that democracy refuses to believe that man can help
himself by enslaving himself.
The universal problem confronting mankind today,
so far as his life on this earth is concerned, is whether he has
the patience, the understanding, the sympathy and the ability
to cooperate with his fellow man in achieving the goal of democracy.
We in this country are fortunate in having an abundance of natural
resources and a high level of technology. It is unfortunately
true that we do have some poverty in the midst of plenty in this
country. But we must not forget for the world as a whole the picture
is one of a few islands of plenty in an ocean of human misery.
One-half of the world goes to bed hungry every night; one-half
of the world is sufferings from preventable diseases; countless
millions are hopeless; and two-thirds of the world's population
is unable to read or write.
There is no question that the goal of democracy
will be achieved eventually--whether it takes one hundred years
or one thousand years. The real question is whether the promise
of democracy can be achieved quickly enough in the face of the
great difficulties confronting the world to prevent countless
years of needless human misery.
Fortunately in this country our problem of fully
realizing the promise of democracy--equal opportunity and the
good life for everyone--is not dependent upon the acquisition
of greater natural resources or the achievement of a higher level
of technology. It is dependent solely upon our ability as fellow
Americans to cooperate with each other in making certain that
every American citizen really does have an opportunity to lead
a personally satisfying, and socially useful life. In other words,
our problem is one of finding ways and means of developing the
necessary social organization, not one of finding the economic
resources to carry out our social aims.
|