It is popular to argue that what one wants only what one deserves, not a ‘handout’. Wollstonecraft argued precisely that - “It is justice, not charity, that is wanting in the world!” Henry George similarly argued that “All that charity can do where injustice exists is here and there to mollify somewhat the effects of Injustice.” Justice is a strong word, a powerful one, even if it’s a difficult one to define.
This is why no one argues against justice. Instead, those who would resist redistribution argue instead against “entitlement”. Somehow, the connotation of the word seems so harsh and grating - few accusations seem worse than to be accused of feeling ‘entitled’. And yet, what is the difference? Isn’t a person demanding justice at the same time asserting they are entitled to it? Such a difference semantics can make!
But the obsession with entitlement goes well beyond simply denying justice - I’d argue it’s a real drag on the economy. Because in reality every voter wants the government’s help to make a living. Insisting that that help not be structured as an entitlement, however, drags the entire economy down. Suppose for example that a free trade deal would simultaneously produce a wealthier economy and lower median wages. It would be possible to tax the beneficiaries of the deal and distribute money to those harmed by it in such a way that everyone was better off than before the deal. Many Americans, however, would vehemently argue against receiving direct payments compensating for lower wages - it’s an entitlement, funded by unfair taxes! They would prefer that trade barriers remain up - still using the power of the government to raise the wages of some individuals at the expense of others, but now with less efficiency. All this, of course, for the sake of avoiding *the appearance of* entitlement.
This is a deep problem in American political culture, and it won’t be cured overnight. But I think the first step has to be helping voters realize that feeling entitled to what one is owed is not a sin - indeed, it the only way to truly advocate for justice, not charity.
I think you have to keep in mind the extent to which working class America considers getting by without the need of public assistance a mark of status. It is the dividing line between the poor that there's no shame in being and the poor who ought to be ashamed. Consider how often you hear in country music the refrain that we were poor but we never took charity. Trying to create a social Rube Goldberg device that is supposed to direct income to the lower wage earners via the free enterprise system rather than just giving them money is a sop to their pride. Thus restricting immigration becomes the conservative idea of a social program: Improving wages by reducing the labor pool.
A critique in long form
https://calmandcollected.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-entitlement-a-critique