Indeed, many of the choices that expose Americans to risk -- from going to school to seeking a better job to building a family -- are precisely the ones that most greatly benefit families and society as a whole. Families can give up many of these risks only by giving up on the American Dream.

For me, this passage is the heart of Hacker's political innovation in The Great Risk Shift. It is easy to look at a prescription for society-wide risk spreading and see pure unadulterated socialism. It's much harder to start with social insurance and end up promoting the freedom for individuals to pursue happiness and each create a career, an enterprise or a family of his or her own. And it's harder still to craft the beginnings of a pithy slogan that does a damn good job capturing the idea while remaining correct.

It would be silly to attack a work like this, since its ultimate thrust is hope -- hope that democracy can make our lives better than we would be all alone. You've got to cut hope some slack to ever get it off the ground.

Instead, I'm curious about the next steps. As Hacker admits, it will be hard running on a platform of "Government can radically improve your life" with Americans deeply cynical about our government's basic competency. Is this idea even something that today's legislators can win on, or will it take a lot more before Americans are even receptive to it?

One suspects that a Congressional turnover based on "throw the bums out" won't by itself be the defining moment of restoring faith in government. Perhaps the "security and opportunity society" notion is less a basis for campaign promises, and more a basis for governing once a not exactly ideas-based campaign is already won.