The Third Solution To Solving Social Ills
The Government Can't Fix Our Problems. Civil Society Could
By Noah Gould
On my drive home from work, I usually listen to NPR, despite the fact that my dad has many times insisted it should stand for “The National People’s Radio.” My experience is always the same. At first, I nod along to a problem or crisis the reporter is presenting, agreeing that this is certainly something that should be addressed. But I am invariably disappointed when the segment concludes with some variation of “… and this proves that the Federal Government needs to do more.”
I really should see it coming by now, but I’m still bugged by the assumption: Why should I buy the idea that the government, particularly the federal government, is the salve for every wound? What about other people or organizations who could help?
What really bothers me is that the logical jump from social problem to government intervention seems to be wide spread on both sides of the political aisle. Right or Left, more and more often nowadays it seems our first instinct is to ask what the federal government should do to solve our problems.
In his book Planned Chaos, the great economist Ludwig Von Mises claims there are only two answers to a problem: “The government or the market. There is no third solution.” In his context, Mises argues against authoritarian imposition in the market. It’s the libertarian instinct — “the market will solve” — and if we are talking about setting prices, that is correct.
But market equilibrium doesn’t always solve social ills; it merely reflects coordination of prices. While the market surely reflects individual preferences that have led to low marriage rates, low church attendance, and low community engagement, it cannot resolve these issues.
What do we do about social problems that can be solved neither by the market nor the government?
I believe there is a third solution, ignored by politicians and economists alike — that is civil society.
Churches, schools, clubs, associations — these do what both government and markets cannot: form character and create deep community. They are a crucial middle space between the individual and the state. The state might have the financial resources to facilitate solutions, but it cannot give the personal care needed to address the core issue a person is facing. These groups and institutions within civil society give the individual a space to interact with others.
In his essay The Work of a Local Culture, Wendell Berry describes the limits of what government and markets can provide in the context of education: “Unlike the local community, the government and economy cannot be served with affection, but only with professional zeal or professional boredom.” For Berry the local, geographically specific, community is the force that will solve the malaise of lack of connection that people face. His insights into community writ large shed light on the specific ways that institutions of civil society are the most important sources of solutions for the problems we face.
The problem then becomes the widespread collapse in civil society. In the aptly titled book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam famously chronicles the hollowing out of membership and group activities in America. The trends Putnam identifies have only continued since then — and were exacerbated by the Covid pandemic. Charles Murray in Coming Apart outlines how the decline in social capital has been greatest for those on the lower income scale. Currently, many people have replaced their involvement in institutions in their community with political activism. For example, see the rapid fall of local news in exchange for national and the number of protest marches on the nation’s capital, the discourse has shifted to national politics. Populist movements in both parties are partially fueled by the fact that many people feel disconnected from their communities and see a system that does not work for them.
The causes behind the collapse of civil society are many and complicated. Journalist Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner explores them in his book Alienated America. In the conclusion of that book, Carney posits there is no top-down solution, but that it's up to small groups scattered across the country to rebuild communities. For a more in depth treatment of this topic, I recommend you read his book. Below, however, I offer a few guiding principles that can help us move towards a healthier civil society.
Voluntary Participation in Civil Society Needs to Become the New Norm
Civil society — that is the many institutions and groups in the private sphere — is, by nature, voluntary. We should be skeptical of any solutions that promise to re-engage civil society through top-down means. Re-granting schemes that give government money to local organizations will not help to revitalize communities long term. Take Hungary, for example, where you can elect 1% of your income tax to go toward an organization of your choice. The goal of this practice was to jump start community organizations after the fall of the USSR, but now there is no established process to wean those organizations off that funding. Consequently, they remain beholden to the government, and set their missions and goals accordingly.
Public funding of institutions removes layers of independence which can allow governments to exert control on the direction and mission of an organization. Such actions destroy the integrity of what makes civil society unique, what enables it to provide a space between the individual and the state.
It’s the local, personal, and individual nature of institutions like the local Elk’s Lodge, church, or Scouting troop that empower them to solve problems that individuals and families face. They are tailored and built to serve specific situations, cultures, and groups. The independent nature of civil society organizations creates an insulation from national problems.
Take one specific Elk Lodge in Greenfield, Mass., for example: When a local church, which serves a weekly meal to veterans, faced increased costs, the Lodge found a grant of $3,000 to fill the gap. This relatively small amount of money would have been lost in the sea of national problems, but has a very significant impact on a certain group of people in a specific place. Also worth noting is how two different institutions partnered on a solution that neither could have done alone; this type of coordination is common among community organizations.
Another organization in Joplin, Mo., is taking a novel approach to homelessness. Responding to a cycle of dependency among the homeless, where many people feel helpless to address their specific problems, James Whitford, founder of Watered Gardens, responded to the needs in his community by building a model of support where people are able to earn access to the services they need. The model is intended to increase homeless individual’s dignity in the process of getting on their feet.
As Wendell Berry explains in the same essay as above, many people think it's a healthy nation that creates healthy communities, but that’s actually backwards. The many small organizations of civil society form the backbone that make the health of a nation possible.
Family is the Natural and Most Fundamental Society — It Should Be Protected
Family is itself a society which provides the essential building block so that the individuals within it can pursue many different initiatives. This is not only the immediate family of parents and children, but the extended network of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. Creating thriving families means promoting a growing economy that will provide well-paying jobs, especially for men who otherwise would not get married. Strong economic bedrock removes a large barrier to family formation. A thriving economy goes a long way to making marriage more feasible.
Welfare programs should reward, not penalize, working. This is an area where different levels and bureaus of government need to collaborate to avoid creating welfare cliffs where benefits sharply drop off when income rises. This happens most often when benefits stack from different government entities then fall off together with no coordination. This can make a couple who wants to get married think twice about whether they would be better off without. Marriage matters not only for its intrinsic value but because it gives kids stability and better outcomes later in life.
If families are the most fundamental building blocks of a society, then the Government should avoid at all cost policies that delay or weigh down the formation and maintenance of these natural bonds.
More Citizens Should Go To Church
A central part of the trend of disassociation from membership in general is flight from church membership. In the U.S., the percentage of people who were members of a church held steady from the 1940s to 1980s. Since then, membership has decreased, and is now below half. Most people are not members of any church.
Churches are special institutions because of the combination of higher purpose, diversity of generations and backgrounds, and the ability to meet the particular needs of their community. Churches routinely and quietly care for the physical needs of the poor in their neighborhood, but they do not stop there. They also provide spiritual counseling and spiritual guidance, which is often at the core of the malaise people face.
A handful of countries in Europe levy a tax to support churches. For instance in Germany, members of churches have 8-9% additional income tax that is apportioned to their church. Comparing the religious attendance in the U.S., even if declining, to Germany does not show favorably the church tax’s ability to bring in new members. In fact, shrinking churches in the U.S. are not due primarily to lack of funding, but a shift from their core mission into political or social soapboxing.
Recent headlines have focused on the return of young men to church. Will these men form families and bring them to church, countering the trend? Certainly, public recognition of churches as supplying a deeper need is a first step in their growth. But churches can push that recognition forward by focusing on their core reason for existing; that reason will attract more members.
These principles are only a sketch of what must be done to revitalize the whole sector of civil society. But really what we are asking is for many different people to coordinate their actions through groups to achieve solutions for their communities. These types of varied actions defy simple solutions. We can, however, remove barriers that prevent family formation and refocus existing institutions on their core purpose. The desire to join cannot be manufactured, but it can be encouraged through displaying how different organizations are supplying different needs for families and individuals.
Noah C. Gould is the Alumni & Student Programs Manager at the Acton Institute and a Contributor at Young Voices. His writing has appeared in outlets such as the Washington Free Beacon, Newsweek, and National Review.