Skyhunter said:
I think that perhaps source of your amazement may be erroneous assumptions about the "core ideals" of the Democratic party.
What Clinton did was not abolish welfare, or violate any socialist value held dear by democrats.
Did you happen to read
any of the opening post...? What Clinton did was
widely decried by leading Democrats as being against the party ideals and was an issue taken directly from the Republican's playbook.
Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.[Haskins 2006]
Critics made dire predictions about the consequences of welfare reform. For instance, they claimed that the five-year time limit was needlessly short, and that those who exceeded the limit through no fault of their own might turn to begging or crime. They also felt that too little money was devoted to vocational training. Others criticized the block grant system, claiming that states would not be able to administer the program properly, or would be too motivated by cost. Finally, it was claimed that although the bill might work in a booming economy like that of the 1990s, it would cause significant harm in a recession.
Social evolution is as real as biological evolution. A society is at it's peak when every individual is realizing her full potential. Each individual will more fully realize his potential when his/her basic self maintenance needs are met. Just like in the military. Each individual is provided food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, and employment.
What is wrong with a civilian government providing these most basic needs to all it's citizens?
The results of the government
stopping providing many of these services is clearest in what
didn't happen as a result of the reform. Forcing people to take personal responsibility for their lives did not result in higher crime, higher poverty, etc. People actually
will take care of themselves if forced-to! (what a bizarre concept!
)
How can a government claim sovereignty if it cannot provide these most basic needs?
Where in what political theory does that question come from? It certainly was
not part of the principles on which the US and most western governments that followed were founded. Most of these social "entitlements" that people now take for granted in the US were put into place in the 1930s by Roosevelt. The changes he made to the government - and mostly not for the better - were the biggest in the country's history. And much of it was unconstitutional - some laws were overturned and later "fixed" to be constitutional, but much of it was allowed by a Supreme Court that became passive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
Also, I don't see any part of the definition of the word "sovereign" that applies here. "Sovereign" just means having ultimate authority. The only thing I can think of that applies here is that in a democracy, the
people are sovereign. But then, that wouldn't fit with your thesis, since it would require personal responsibility...