Journal of Comparative Social Welfare

Vol. 26, Nos. 2–3, June–October 2010, 261–274

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Social justice: a conservative perspective
Bruce A. Thyer*

College of Social Work, Florida State University, 296 Champions Way,

Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
(Received 22 December 2009)

Although political conservatives outnumber moderates and liberals in the

American populace, the conservative political ideology is largely absent
from academic, practice and policy discourse within the social work and
social welfare communities. This article describes a conservative perspective
on the topic of social justice and illustrates how this view actually promotes
a more socially just practice than a liberal orientation to practice and
policy. Specific attention is given to the conservative perspective on the
provision of social welfare programs, the use of the income tax as a means
to redistribute wealth, on affirmative action, on the death penalty, and on
abortion rights.
Keywords: conservativism; social justice; social work; social welfare

Introduction
The concept of social justice has long been a central value for social workers, central
to such an extent that anyone not endorsing this perspective would be questioned as
regards their suitability for the profession. This article will attempt to clarify the
views that politically conservative social workers take with respect to the concept of
social justice. Recognizing that the majority of social workers endorse a relatively
liberal political orientation, conservative social workers sometimes need to justify
their own beliefs, particularly in the light of sentiments published in the NASW
News, such as: ‘‘If you accept that social workers have an obligation to advance
social justice and that political engagement is a means to accomplish that end, then
you have to accept that we reject conservative political thought and conservative
politicians’’ (Newdom, 2003, p. 3; emphasis added). Given that a respect for diversity
is also central value of social work, this repudiation of a political orientation held by
a substantial proportion of the electorate in the United States and in other countries
seems inappropriate. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of
Ethics addresses this issue in the standards appearing in Box 1, each indicating that
political belief should not be the basis for discrimination (NASW, 1999). Similarly,
the Council on Social Work Education includes political ideology as among the
factors (comparable with race, sexual orientation and gender) deserving of

*Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1748–6831 print/ISSN 1748–684X online

ß 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17486831003687634
http://www.informaworld.com
262 B.A. Thyer

Box 1. Selected statements from the NASW Code of Ethics addressing political beliefs.

2.01 Respect (b)

Social workers should avoid unwarranted negative criticism of colleagues . . . Unwarranted
negative criticism may include demeaning comments that refer to . . . individuals’ attributes
such as race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status,
political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability.
4.02 Discrimination
Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of
discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation,
age, marital status, political belief, religion of mental or physical disability.
6.04 Social and political action
Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and
discrimination against any person or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin,
color, sex, sexual orientation, group, age, marital status, political belief, religion, or mental or
physical disability.
Note: Emphasis added.

Box 2. Selected statements from the educational policy and accreditation standards of the
Council on Social Work Education (2008) addressing political ideology.

Educational Policy 2.1.4 – Engage diversity and difference in practice

The dimensions of diversity are understand as the intersectionality of multiple factors
including age, class, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression,
immigration status, political ideology, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation . . . Social
workers . . . gain sufficient self-awareness to eliminate the influence of personal biases and
values in working with diverse groups.
Educational Policy 3.1 – Diversity
The program’s commitment to diversity – including age, class, color, culture, disability,
ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, immigration status, political ideology, race,
religion, sex, and sexual orientation – is reflected in its learning environment . . . and the
demographic make-up of its faculty, staff, and student body
Accreditation Standard 3.1 – Diversity
The program describes the specific and continuous efforts it makes to provide a learning
environment in which respect for all persons and understanding of diversity and difference are
practiced.

protection and respect in its educational policy and accreditation standards (see
Box 2).
Such protections are apparently needed, given the discrimination experienced by
some conservative social work students at the hands of liberal faculty members, as
documented by Ressler and Hodge (2003), Powers (2006), and in the report issued by
the National Association of Scholars (2007) entitled The scandal of social work
education. This latter report had its findings syndicated nationally (McAdams, 2008;
Monjonnier, 2007; Will, 2007), and reflected discredit upon academic social work.
For example, it was dismaying to read in the prestigious Chronicle of Higher
Education that:
Social-work students at Rhode Island College and Missouri State University report that
they were required to lobby for political causes they did not support and were
threatened with punishment for dissenting views. The Missouri student filed suit in late
October, and the University promptly settled in the student’s favor . . . she was subjected
 Journal of Comparative Social Welfare 263

to a closed hearing . . . and then forced to agree to ‘‘lessen the gap’’ between her own
beliefs and those of the department. (Lukianoff, 2007, p. B8)
Of course the students involved were conservative and the causes they were required
to lobby for were liberal ones. At times it seems that conservatives are the last
politically acceptable minority group that remains fair game for discrimination. This
is odd since the political philosophy of conservatism is more popular than liberalism
in contemporary America. Specifically: ‘‘Conservatives continue to outnumber
moderates and liberates in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that
Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views
as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal’’ (Saad, 2009, p. 1). Across 16
separate Gallup surveys conducted in January–September 2009, between 39% and
41% of Americans identified themselves as either ‘‘very conservative’’ or ‘‘conser-
vative’’, compared with between 20% and 21% identifying themselves as very liberal
or liberal. Thus, conservatism is more mainstream than liberalism as an American
political philosophy, although this is not reflected within the social work profession.
It can help discussion to clarify from the onset what is meant by certain terms,
and I will begin with the definition of social justice as described in The social work
dictionary and published by the NASW:
Social justice An ideal condition in which all members of a society have the same basic
rights, protection, opportunities, obligations, and social benefits. Implicit in this concept
is the notion that historical inequities should be acknowledged and remedied, through
specific measures. A key social work value, social justice entails advocacy to confront
discrimination, oppression, and institutional inequities. (Barker, 2003, p. 205)
This strikes me as a very reasonable perspective, and providing such a definition
helps avoid ambiguities of meaning. For example, in the 1930s Father Joseph
Coughlin provided a weekly radio address and a newspaper received by over 30
million Americans. Through these outlets, Father Coughlin advocated anti-Semitic
and pro-facist themes. The name of his organization was the National Union for
Social Justice and his newspaper was called Social Justice, although by most
standards these views were anything but just (Thyer, 2006). Not all practices enacted
in the name of social justice are truly reflective of the noble ideals behind this value.
Conservatism too can be construed in many different ways, but for the purposes
of this article I am providing the following general definition:
A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established
institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such
a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and
investing, a strong national defense, and individual responsibility for personal needs
(as retirement income or health-care coverage).1
Note the focus of this article is on political conservatism, not other aspects such as
fiscal, social, economic, cultural, green and other more specific variations. Note also
that there is nothing within this definition that could be construed as antithetical to
social justice. Within conservatism there is no room for racism, homophobia, a blind
clinging to tradition, or an authoritarian state, positions sometimes associated
(erroneously in my opinion) with conservatism. What conservatives do promote
includes principles such as:
. The rule of law, with everyone treated equally under the law.
. The sanctity of contracts.
264 B.A. Thyer

. The right of property – to be able to keep what one owns.

. A fairly strict interpretation of the US Constitution.
. Human liberty and freedom from coercion, especially coercion from the
government.
. The minimal necessary levels of taxation for essential governmental services.
Conservatives do not advocate the abolition of taxes, just lower taxes and
a cautious approach to governmental spending.
Conservatives strongly promote human rights, especially those enumerated in the
US Constitution, rights such as the freedom of the press, of religion, assembly, and
to petition the government, the right to bear arms, freedom from cruel and unusual
punishment, and the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; and the right to a trial by jury, to
a speedy trial, to confront witness, and to legal counsel. Note that all of these rights
are essentially negative rights, limits on what the federal government can do for its
citizens. There are no positive rights, goods or services to be proactively provided by
the national government, enumerated in the Constitution, except one – the right to
have legal counsel appointed if a defendant cannot afford a lawyer. Our
constitutional right to freedom of the press does not mean that the government
provides newspapers or printing presses to the citizens. This right means that the
government cannot (generally) prohibit someone from publishing books, newspapers
or pamphlets, even materials antagonistic to the government. Freedom of religion
does not the mean the government has an obligation to provide places to worship or
an official priesthood, only that it cannot interfere (generally) from people practicing
their religious beliefs. The right to bear arms does not mean the government must
provide citizens with weapons, only that it cannot (generally) interfere with citizens
owning guns.
Constitutionally, and hence from a conservative perspective, there are no
constitutionally-mandated federal rights to goods and services such as food, housing,
healthcare, or retirement income. These positive ‘‘rights’’ are seen as best secured by
the individual citizens for themselves and their families, not by the federal
government. Constitutionally the individual states may pass laws providing for
positive rights (e.g. some states have passed laws providing for near-universal
healthcare), but the conservative is more concerned with limiting the role of the
federal government in this regard, than with the individual states, or lesser levels of
government (e.g. cities that provide homeless shelters).

Remembering ‘‘The Forgotten Man’’

Many conservatives draw inspiration from the writings of Yale Professor William
Graham Sumner (1883), whose essay entitled ‘‘What social classes owe each other’’ is
a succinct statement of a conservative view. Sumner described the situation wherein
Persons A and B (federal politicians) decide what Person C (the taxpayer) shall be
required to do for Person D (the person in need). In their zeal to provide for Person
D, at no expense to themselves, Persons A and B often forget the effects of their
legislation on Person C, hence the term ‘‘The Forgotten Man’’. In Sumner’s view,
‘‘. . . a man whose labor and self-denial may be diverted from his maintenance to that
of some other man is not a free man, and approaches more or less toward the
position of a slave’’ (1883, p. 15). Someone who is forced to labor not for himself/
 Journal of Comparative Social Welfare 265

herself but 100% for someone else is a slave. Providing 50% of the results of one’s
labor means that one is half a slave. Providing 10%, one-tenth a slave, and so forth.
According to Sumner, when the politicians get together: ‘‘In their eagerness to
recommend the less fortunate classes to pit and consideration they forget all about
the rights of the other classes . . . they invent new theories of property, distorting
rights and perpetuating injustices’’ (Sumner, 1883, p. 22). He goes on:
If any student of social science comes to appreciate the case of the Forgotten Man, he
will become an unflinching advocate of strict scientific thinking in sociology, and a
hard-hearted skeptic regards to any scheme of social amelioration. He will always want
to know . . . who will have to pay for it all? When, therefore, the statesmen and social
philosophers sit down to think what the state can do or ought to do, they really mean to
decide what the Forgotten Man shall do. (Sumner, 1883, p. 149–150)
The role of the federal government in regards to social welfare was seen by the
founders of our nation as rather limited. Box 3 presents some representative
quotations from several significant figures who addressed this issue. A perusal of
these views will demonstrate the high value placed on the right of property, the
protection of the citizen from the arbitrary seizure of his assets, property, goods, or
money, by the Federal government. This is in stark contrast to the values of the
liberal political theorist. For example, Saul Alinsky bluntly stated:
. . . The radical believes that all people should have a high standard of food, housing
and health . . . The radical places human rights far above property rights. (Alinsky, 1946,
p. 16)
and:
The more developed a welfare state is, the more it removes the satisfaction of individual
needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, health, the right to employment) from the
caprice of the marketplace. (Karger & Stoesz, 1994, p. 106)

Box 3. Selected quotes from early American statesmen on the role of the federal government
in relation to social welfare.

James Madison
‘‘I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right
to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents’’.
‘‘The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objects.
It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the
legislative duty of the government’’.
Thomas Jefferson
‘‘. . . what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? . . . A wise and frugal
government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise
free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
mouth of labour the bread it has earned. That is the sum of good government’’.
‘‘To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired
too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry
and skills, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone
the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it’’.
Abraham Lincoln
I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm
than good . . . [But] we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with
everyone else’’.
266 B.A. Thyer

The problem with this liberal agenda is that the provision of food, housing and
health is not a free good. The federal government can only provide such goods and
services through funding largely obtained by taxation, thus burdening the Forgotten
Man. It is not social justice, contends the conservative, to impose unneeded burdens
on the taxpayer. There are certain things the federal government should do as
enumerated in the US Constitution (e.g. maintain the national defense, provide for
public safety, regulate interstate commerce, contract international treaties, promote
public health, etc.) and the conservative supports low levels of taxation to provide
these services. But as Winston Churchill said: ‘‘Taxes are an evil – a necessary evil,
but still an evil, and the fewer we have of them the better’’ (1906, p. 136).

The social injustice of social welfare programs

The conservative would like to limit the growth of, if not roll back, the federal
government providing goods and services to people. To some extent this is due to
political philosophy, but this perspective also takes into account the fact that many
such federal welfare programs inadvertently (the more charitable interpretation) or
deliberately (the more paranoid interpretation) perpetuate the dependence of their
recipients upon the role of the government. In other words, they often do not work
well. A third source of reservation is that many social welfare programs are
fundamentally socially unjust! Take for example, the social security retirement
system. Among males of my generation, the average Black man’s life expectancy is at
or slightly below the age needed to receive full social security benefits! However, the
White man or woman lives, on average, far beyond the age of eligibility. This is not
socially just, to have White and Black people in America pay similar taxes into the
social security program, and then to have differential levels of benefits based on race!
Admittedly, Whites and Blacks get similar levels of benefits, if they live long enough,
but they do not. For the average single Black man, the social security is basically
theft. He receives nothing, except a death benefit of a few hundred dollars. Fraud is
common within the social security program, with retirement checks being sent to
individuals long since dead (Schuberg, 2009). The conservative advocates for a
personal savings programs intended for retirement, aided perhaps by tax shelters,
whose assets are owned 100% by the individual, and represent an asset that can be
passed on to one’s heirs and not controlled by the government.
Fraud and abuse are rampant in social welfare programs. A significant
proportion of food stamp benefits are fraudulently exchanged for smaller amounts
of cash (and no food). The recipient brings in their food stamp electronic benefit card
to a grocery store, and money is deducted by the criminal cashier from the card as if
the person bought food. They are given a portion of the money, the store keeps the
remainder, and no food is purchased. Recently, my MSW students acquainted with
the food stamp program regaled my class with how individuals regularly defraud this
program, either by schemes like that above or by inflating the numbers of dependents
said to be residing in the household. It is estimated that about $400 million or 2% of
some $20 billion in federal stimulus money allocated to the federal food stamp
program in Pennsylvania alone will be lost to fraud (Wereschagin, 2009), a
percentage comparable with that estimated by the US Department of Agriculture
representing all national spending on food stamps. A Google search for ‘‘food stamp
fraud’’ will reveal a very large number of similar stories. Each dollar stolen via fraud
 Journal of Comparative Social Welfare 267

represents fewer benefits available to legitimately qualified and honest recipients.

And then there are the Forgotten Men (and women) whose taxes pay for this fraud.
Under the administration of President George W. Bush, several significant
expansions of federal healthcare were enacted: one providing for enhanced coverage
of drug benefits under Medicare, and the second elevating coverage of mental
healthcare to levels comparable with that provided for physical healthcare.
Conservatives ask why is it the responsibility of the federal government (i.e. The
Forgotten Men and Women) to pay for the mental healthcare (and substance abuse
treatment) of those unable to obtain such care through their own or more local
resources? There are several objections to the government providing such care. First,
there is virtually no evidence that the routine mental health and substance abuse
treatment services received by most individuals via federal or state/federally paid-for
programs actually improves their mental health or results in long-term sobriety. In
other words, we do not know that these programs even help people. Secondly, a very
wide array of pseudoscientific, indeed bogus, therapies are paid for with this largesse
from the taxpayer, with little incentive to only pay for empirically-supported
treatments. Third, most individuals, if asked, would have voted to expand federal
coverage for dental care over mental care. But the citizens were not asked. Instead,
the lobbying arms of the major mental health professions and advocacy groups
exerted a long and strong campaign to provide for this expanded coverage – groups,
coincidently, who stood the most to gain financially from this expanded coverage
(including the NASW). And fourth, according to a recent survey by a Gallup poll,
more Americans say that it is not the government’s responsibility to make sure all
Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%) (Newport, 2009).
Thus conservative position of ‘‘Do not tax people in order to provide for federal
health care programs’’ is more mainstream in the United States than the liberal
position asserting that healthcare is somehow a right.
Medicare and Medicaid fraud is rampant, with between 3% and 10% of the $800
billion spent on these programs each year being lost to waste, fraud and abuse.
Millions are spent each year on services fraudulently billed after patients are dead,
and ‘‘between $60 million to $92 million was paid for by medical services or
equipment that had been ordered or prescribed by dead doctors’’ (Seper &
Neubauer, 2009, p. 1). ‘‘To put the $60 billion in fraud in perspective, Medicare loses
seven times as much money in fraud every year than the combined profits of the 14
insurance companies on the Fortune 500’’ (Examiner Editorial, 2009). It gets worse.
Between 2005 and 2007, over 200,000 (about 12%) of Medicare patients’ deaths
could have been prevented (Magor, 2008, p. 1). Conservatives also object to federal
proposals that individuals who fail to pay for their own health insurance are liable to
be subject to fines (up to $250,000) or to be sent to prison (up to five years)! (see
Miller, 2009; Morris & McGann, 2009). At the time this article is being written,
federal legislation is on the verge of being passed to require individuals to purchase
private health insurance. There is no so-called public option, and no expansion of
Medicare in this plan about to be voted on by the US Senate. One result is that
the stock prices of the major health insurance providers are soaring in value,
benefiting the stockholders! Thus an unintended consequence of the federal
government meddling in mandating health insurance is more profits to private
insurance companies, companies already vilified because of their supposedly
excessive profits.
268 B.A. Thyer

What about the social contract?

Liberal reformers often justify their imposition of taxation on the Forgotten Man
and Woman to provide supposed social benefits by invoking the so-called social
contract, the concept that we all implicitly must support (via taxation) the larger
society (e.g. social care programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
[TANF] and Women, Infants and Children [WIC]) as the price for enjoying the
benefits of living in that society. Conservatives of course support the notion of a
social contract, but typically see it as a much more limited arrangement than do their
liberally-minded counterparts. For example, our elected representatives enact certain
laws essential for the peace and smooth functioning of society. I give up my right to
exact personal retribution against someone who commits a crime against me, in
return for society enacting a strong criminal justice system. But the general
agreement that some level of a social contract exists cannot be used to justify the
imposition of an ever-expanding set of obligations upon the Forgotten Man or
Woman in the name of social justice. Conservatives resist their tax money being
spent on hugely expensive pork-barrel projects, which are allocated more on the
basis of ensuring the re-election of federal members of congress than on legitimate
need.2
A social contract is only legitimate to the extent that it is freely entered into by
both parties. To the extent that coercion is a part of the program, as in fines or jail
time for individuals who do not purchase a government-mandated health insurance
policy, the social contract is broken. It is also broken from an intergenerational
perspective. As a father of four children aged 16 years and younger, I resent the
notion that contemporary federal officials can impose immense huge debts on the
future generation of citizens. It is not myself or current federal officials who will have
to pay of the expenses of these huge, fraudulent and often ineffective social care
programs, but rather it is my children and my children’s children. So long as we run
a national deficit, and have a national debt, the idea of any kind of social contract
is broken, because we are obligating others, not just ourselves, with the burden of
paying off this debt. This is not social justice.

Redistribution ^ theft
Federal taxation is seen as legitimate, providing that it is used to enable the
government to fund essential services. To the extent it funds social care programs
outside the legitimate constitutionally restricted scope of the national government, to
the extent these programs are rife with fraud, to the extent they are not effective, and
to the extent they obligate future (not just current) citizens with ever higher levels of
taxation, taxation levels have exceeded their legitimate role. However, there is
another problem with the current system of taxation to which conservatives object,
and that is the use of the federal tax system to attempt to redistribute wealth via the
Robin-Hood-inspired philosophy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
Conservatives see the right to retain one’s property, not just land but all goods,
resources, money, and labor, of the individual, as a crucial right for a free society,
that is restricted at the peril of all other liberties. Conservative writer Russell Kirk
listed this right as among the Ten conservative principles:
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
Separate property from private possession and Leviathan becomes master of
 Journal of Comparative Social Welfare 269

all . . . Economic leveling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress . . . (Kirk,

1993)
Contrast this view from that of leading liberal leaders, such as President Obama:
‘‘If you talk to Warren (Buffett), he’ll tell you his preference is not to meddle in the
economy at all – let the market work, however it’s going to work, and then just tax the
heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it,’’ Obama said. ‘‘That way you’re not
impeding efficiency, and you’re achieving equality on the back end.’’ He continued by
saying that he thought there was some merit to Buffett’s argument. (cited in Leonhardt,
2008, p. M30)
One of the major planks of Marx’s Communist Manifesto was to abolish the right of
inheritance, again for the purpose of redistributing wealth. As this article is being
written, the President’s proposed federal budget establishes an inheritance tax (known
by conservatives as the death tax) at rates of up to 45% on estates valued at more than
$3.5 million (Staff, 2009). Keep in mind that the money in one’s estate has already been
taxed and thus the estate tax represents double taxation. The taxation of estates leads
to a decline in savings, spending on luxuries, and a reduction in accumulated capital
that can be used to fund small business. My widow will be more likely to recklessly
spend our estate on frivolities, knowing that what she leaves will be confiscated by the
federal government. The amount of federal revenues thus raised via the estate tax is
relatively low, but this is not its rationale, which is primarily redistributionist in
nature. Again, Persons A and B (with lavish tax shelters) decide that Person C shall be
required to pay an estate tax upon his or her death, in part to fund programs for Person
D. The dead are even more forgotten than the living, since they do not vote.
Conservatives remember Persons A and B, and would like to see that Persons A and B
not only get to keep as much as possible of what they have legally acquired, but that
they are free to determine the disposition of their estates upon their death, free from
confiscatory government taxation. This is social justice.
Another major plank found in the Communist Manifesto is for a heavy
progressive or graduated income tax. This too is for the purposes of distributing
wealth and preventing the accumulation of capital. We already have this in the
United States. In 2005 the richest 1% of income tax filers paid about 39% of all
income taxes that year, and the richest 10% paid about 70% (Staff, 2007). In 2006
the top quintile of households filing income taxes paid over 69% of all revenues
collected by the federal government, while the bottom quintile paid no income taxes
at all, and 23 million received payments (over $4 billion) via the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) program. Thus not only are the Persons A and B of America paying
far more than their fair share of federal income tax, they are also directly making
payments to Person D via the EITC. This is not social justice.
When the poor pay nothing at all, their involvement in responsible government
declines precipitously, except to vote in favor of the politicians who will continue to
provide them with social benefits, such as the EITC. This situation seems remarkably
similar to that described over 2000 years ago by commentators during the Social
Wars of ancient Rome:
If the middle class has any function at all it is to work to provide us with taxes, with
which we can bribe the mobs of Rome and keep them contented and docile. It is true
that the plebs of Rome are mere animals, but there are so many of them and we need
their votes for our power! Let the middle-class be our servant to that end . . . (Gaius
Julius Caesar, the Elder, cited in Caldwell, 1965, p. 101)
270 B.A. Thyer

and
It is hard to say which is the more evil, those who bribe the masses, or the masses who
receive the bribe . . . He who receives a bribe, so he must not work to cover and feed and
house himself, is less than the amiable dog . . . The mob protects nothing but its belly,
and he who caters to that belly for its grunted approval must stand before history as
lower even than the basest slave . . . (Marcus Livius Drusus, cited in Caldwell, 1965,
pp. 101–102)
Conservatives believe in supporting essential governmental programs via modest
levels of taxation. Most social welfare programs are not usually seen as an essential
federal governmental service. Taking money from taxpayers to support non-essential
government-provided services is therefore socially unjust.

Affirmative action
Conservatives support affirmative action to redress past inequities or discriminatory
treatment. But they do not support so-called affirmative action programs wherein
such a history of discriminatory treatment does not exist. For example, many
universities provide admissions preferences to men, admitting males who are under-
qualified relative to women applicants. This is difficult to justify on the grounds that
males have historically been discriminated against in terms of college admissions by
virtue of their gender. In fact, the historical evidence suggests the opposite dynamic
was common – men were afforded more opportunities to be admitted to college than
similarly qualified women. The US Commission on Civil Rights is investigating the
issue of affirmative action in colleges admissions, favoring men, and it is likely they
will condemn the practice (Jaschik, 2009), even though it is widespread. Similarly,
conservatives, adhering to the principle of equal treatment for all, object to the
practice of colleges providing ‘‘legacy admissions’’, of giving a preference in
admissions to the children of alumni. The offspring of college-educated men and
women can hardly be considered an oppressed group, and when a less academically-
qualified ‘‘legacy’’ child is admitted in lieu of the more qualified non-legacy
applicant, this is socially unjust and of course repugnant to conservatives. Legacy
admissions may also be illegal, although this has not yet been tested in court
(Shadowen, Tulante, & Alpern, 2009).
The NASW has a strong affirmative action policy in all of its operations,
including the composition of ballots for national and state elective offices. Once I put
myself forward to run for state NASW office, and I received the following email
from the chapter NASW officer in charge of elections:
Bruce, the NASW national office dictates that our board composition parallels our
membership. Unfortunately we cannot run a male for Board-Member-at-Large. The
maximum number of males is on the board already . . . we are a largely female
organization.
I found it astonishing that as a dues-paying member of the NASW I was
disenfranchized because of my gender. This is all the more socially unjust in that my
male African American colleagues would similarly not be allowed to appear on the
ballot. Surely the distinguished NASW does not have a history of discriminating
against women, and thus a so-called affirmative action policy favoring women over
men is socially unjust, and hence repugnant to conservatives (for a more complete
description on this episode, see Thyer, 2010).
 Journal of Comparative Social Welfare 271

Abortion and the death penalty

To conservatives, human life is a person’s most precious possession and they should
not be deprived of it. Conservatives distrust granting government the right to kill
persons, in as much as we are constitutionally seen to have a right to life. Many
conservatives, including the writer, advocate for the abolishment of the death penalty
because of the historically unjust manner in which it has been carried out (e.g. the
poor, and minorities of color are more likely to be executed, compared with white
persons, having committed similar crimes; mistakes can be made and innocent
individuals convicted and executed). We also do not favor granting the power of life
and death to the government. It is conceded that the government should take steps to
protect the public from dangerous persons, but this can be done less expensively and
with greater justice via imprisonment, not execution.
Similarly the conservative perspective on the sanctity of human life makes most
conservatives advocate for more restrictive abortion laws. Once intended to avoid
forcing a woman to carry a baby conceived via rape or incest, or to avoid a life-
threatening medical condition exacerbated by pregnancy, abortion now is simply a
matter of convenient birth control for many women. Conservatives shun the idea
that a human life could be terminated so that a woman could avoid the experience of
carrying that child to term. In this instance, the developing fetus is seen as a human
life, worthy of protection. The act of abortion commits a serious social injustice
against this developing person, and the right to life supersedes the woman’s right to
avoid the inconveniences of an unwanted pregnancy.
Conservatives, ever concerned with equal treatment for all individuals, and
wanting to promote a more socially just society, view with dismay the dispropor-
tionate impact that liberal abortion laws have had on the Black community in
America. For example, although about 13% of the female population ages 15–44
years are minority women, this group experiences about 36% of the abortions. It has
been estimated that over 1800 African American babies are aborted in the United
States every day, totaling about 16 million abortions to Black women since 1973.
More Black babies die from abortion than African Americans die from AIDS,
accident, heart disease and cancer combined! Abortion has had a huge demographic
impact on the United States, to the extent that the Black population would be about
36% larger than it is at present, were it not for abortion. Some conservatives have
labeled this ‘‘Black Genocide’’.3
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, one of the leading pro-
abortion advocacy groups, advocated for the liberalizing abortion and sterilization
laws, specifically for the purpose of reducing the numbers of Black people (Sanger,
1922). According to Evans and Makow (2009, p. 1):
In a 1934 letter, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote to her
financial sponsor, Clarence Gamble (the Proctor & Gamble heir):
‘‘We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service
backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach
to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want
to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out
that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members’’.
Most conservatives do not wish to abolish abortion, recognizing that there are many
circumstances where such a decision is unhappily needed. But in the words of Hillary
Rodham Clinton, ‘‘Every abortion is a tragedy’’ and thus some additional modest
272 B.A. Thyer

restrictions may be appropriate. Examples include reducing the practice of

aborting late-term viable babies (admittedly rare, but still available), and of
providing support and incentives for women to choose to carry their baby to term,
and perhaps give the baby up for adoption is the mother is unable to care for her
infant. Or requiring that physicians be required to notify and obtain consent from
the parents of minor non-emancipated teenagers prior to providing an abortion to
these minors.

Summary
Conservative principles are completely congruent with the value of social justice, as
maintained by the profession of social work, as well as by society at large. By
adhering to certain core principles – the value of human life and liberty, the right to
own and retain one’s property, the equal treatment of all persons under the law,
conservatives can present a nuanced and justifiable argument relating to selected
social justice issues of keen interest to social workers. Among the these issues are the
morality of social welfare programs, the use of the income tax system to promote the
redistribution of wealth, affirmative action, the death penalty, and abortion.
Conservative social workers believe that adhering to their principles results in a more
socially just world via the creation of more socially just programs and policies, than
the practices espoused by their more liberal colleagues. It is both ironic and socially
unjust that conservative political ideology is both largely ignored and demonized by
mainstream social work. The profession needs both a greater appreciation and
acceptance of the legitimacy of the conservative political ideology held by so many of
its members. It would do the profession good to recall the advice of early social work
pioneer Edward T. Devine: ‘‘It was the first duty of social workers to be persistently
and aggressively nonpartisan, to maintain such relations with men of goodwill in all
parties as well as ensure their cooperation in specific measures of the common good’’
(cf. Margolin, 1997, p. 5).

Acknowledgements
This essay was prepared in honor of Professor Brij Mohan, a scholar whose point of view lay
in considerably different directions than those outlined herein, but who nevertheless respected
diverse perspectives within the fields of social work practice and policy. The profession is the
poorer for his retirement.

Notes
1. Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
conservatism
2. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/PageServer?
pagename¼reports_pigbook2009
3. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from http://www.blackgenocide.org/

Notes on contributor
Bruce Thyer is Professor and former Dean with the College of Social Work at Florida State
University. He is a past member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Social Work
Education, the Executive Committee of the Society for Social Work and Research, the
 Journal of Comparative Social Welfare 273

Steering Committee of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social
Work, and the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association.
His major research interests are in the fields of evidence-based practice, program evaluation,
applied behavior analysis, and clinical social work theory and practice.

References

Alinsky, S. (1946). Reveille for radicals. New York: Vintage Books.

Barker, R.L. (Ed.). (2003). The social work dictionary (5th ed.). Washington, DC: NASW
Press.
Caldwell, T. (1965). A pillar of iron. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Churchill, W.S. (1906). Contribution to parliamentary debate. In The parliamentary debates
(Vol. 169, p. 136). London: Wyman and Sons.
Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
Evans, R., & Makow, H. (2009, June 5). Obama’s elite agenda: Black abortion for profit.
Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://www.infowars.com/obamas-elite-agenda-black-
abortion-for-profit/
Examiner Editorial. (2009, November 20). First, stop Medicare and Medicaid
fraud. The Washington Examiner. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://
www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/First_stop-Medicare-and-Medicaid-fraud-8559066-
70554417.html
Jaschik, S. (2009, November 2). Probe of extra help for men. Inside Higher Education.
Retrieved December 20, 2009, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/02/
admit
Karger, H.J., & Stoesz, D. (1994). Toward a politically acceptable reformation of the
American welfare state. In R.G. Meinert, J.T. Pardeck, & W.P. Sullivan (Eds.), Issues in
social work: A critical analysis (pp. 105–125). Westport, CT: Auburn House.
Kirk, R. (1993). Ten conservative principles. Retrieved December 17, 2009, from http://
www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-pronciples.html
Leonhardt, D. (2008, August 24). Obamanomics. New York Times Magazine, p. M30.
Lukianoff, G. (2007, March 30). Social justice and political orthodoxy. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, p. B8.
Magor, G. (2008). Study: 237,000 Medicare deaths preventable. Retrieved December 14,
2009, from http://www.mainstreet.com/article/retirement/long-term-care/study-237000-
medicare-deaths-preventable
McAdams, J. (2008, December 25). Ideological litmus test in social work schools. Marquette
Warrior, p. 1.
Margolin, L. (1997). Under the cover of kindness: The invention of social work. Charlottesville,
VA: University of Virginia Press.
Miller, S. (2009, November 9). Interview with the president: Jail time for those without
health care insurance? Retrieved December, 16 2009, from http://blogs.abcnews.com/
politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-
care-insurance.html
Mojonnier, C. (2007, October 15). Social work slights the political right. The Daily Orange.
Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://wwwdailyorange.com
Morris, D., & McGann, E. (2009, November 8). Pelosi bill: Jail for no insurance.
Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/
66879-pelosi-bill-jail-for-no-insurance
National Association of Scholars. (2007, September 11). The scandal of social work education.
Retrieved November 12, 2008, from www.nas.org
274 B.A. Thyer

National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author.
Newdom, F. (2003, April). On politics and values. NASW News, 48(4), 3.
Newport, F. (2009, November 13). More in US say health coverage is not gov’t. responsibility:
Marks significant shift from the attitudes of the past decade. Retrieved November 16, 2009,
from http://www.gallup.com/poll/124253/say-health-coverage-not-gov-responsibility.aspx
Powers, E. (2006, November 1). Did assignment get too political? Inside Higher Education.
Retrieved June 21, 2008, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/01/complaint
Ressler, L.E., & Hodge, D.R. (2003). Silenced voices: Social work and the oppression of
conservative narratives. Social Thought, 22, 125–142.
Saad, L. (2009, October 26). Conservatives maintain edge as top ideological group. Retrieved
October 28, 2009, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-
Top-Ideological-Group.aspx
Sanger, M. (1922). The pivot of civilization. New York: Bretanos.
Schuberg, K. (2009). Social security sent more than $40 million in checks to dead people,
inspector general finds. Retrieved August 18, 2009, from www.cnn.com
Seper, J. & Neubauer, C. (2009, November 30). Medicare fraudsters rake in billions. The
Washington Times. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from http://www.washingtontimes.com/
news/2009/nov/30/medicare-fraudsters-rake-in-billions/
Shadowen, S.D., Tulante, S.P., & Alpern, S.L. (2009). No distinctions except those which
merit obligates: The unlawfulness of legacy preferences in public and private universities.
Santa Clara Law Review, 49, 51–136.
Staff. (2007). Taxes and income. The Wall Street Journal, p. A20.
Staff. (2009, March 31). Night of the living death tax. The Wall Street Journal, p. A20.
Sumner, W.G. (1883). What social classes owe to each other. New York: Harper.
Thyer, B.A. (2005). A conservative perspective on social welfare policy. Retrieved July 31, 2006,
from http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4778.html
Thyer, B.A. (2006, August 4). The ambiguity of ‘‘social justice’’ (letter). The Chronicle of
Higher Education, p. A43.
Thyer, B.A. (2010). The Council on Social Work Education and the National Association of
Social Workers: A concerned critique. In H.J. Karger & D. Stoesz (Eds.), A dream deferred:
How social work education lost its way and what can be done about it. Piscataway, NJ:
Transaction Books.
Wereschagin, M. (2009, April 26). Food stamp fraud may steal $400M from stimulus funds.
Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from http://pittsburghlive.com/
x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_622423.html
Will, G.F. (2007, October 14). Code of coercion. The Washington Post, p. B07.
Copyright of Journal of Comparative Social Welfare is the property of Routledge and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.