During the past generation, social welfare has risen to a position of almost prime importance in the work of government. “Social services” have rivalled “defense services” as objects of public expenditure. “Social security” has complemented “national security” as an objective of public policy. Graduate schools of social work have taken their place alongside law schools, schools of education, and military and naval academies as important training-places for public service. It is perhaps time that we now inquire in what ways political science has been, or may yet be, affected by so phenomenal a change. If, as we are often assured, atomic fission means a revolution in our political thinking, the large-scale pursuit of social welfare might at least be expected to call for an equally vast, even though more gradual, evolution in our attitudes.

As an organized body of professed political scientists, how have we reacted to this change? We have, by and large, welcomed the extension of governmental activity. As teachers, we have helped habituate a new generation to such expressions as “the service state,” “positive government,” and “the new belief in the common man.” As scholars, we have followed with interest and approval the successive steps by which jurists have brought these activities within the framework of the written constitution of a federal state. As theorists, we have given to personal insecurity an honored place in the new psychopathological chapter in our evolving political philosophy. As citizens, we have played our part in planning and administering social welfare policies.