This was published in today’s local newspaper. It’s mine, so I have the right to re-publish it here (I assume):
Every day, as I open my newspaper to read, I turn immediately to the opinion pages. I enjoy reading the editorials, political cartoons and letters to the editor even when they irritate me—as they often do.
And I know full well that my contributions here have irritated some good folks, but I hope I’ve made them think about things in a slightly different way. That’s what I aim for.
As I reflect on my many years of reading letters to the editor and guest columns, I discern a continental divide among Americans and it is nowhere more clear than here. I also see it in the bumper stickers that abound on cars and trucks and hear it in casual conversations.
It seems there are two kinds of people—those who regard America as something like a family and those who regard it as a collection of individuals unrelated to each other and even in competition with each other.
Of course, a single person might be a mixture of both—sometimes leaning one way and sometimes leaning the other way. But many people seem locked into one mindset or the other and whichever it is determines their attitudes toward the disadvantaged and less fortunate among us.
People who look at everyone around them, anywhere they go in America, as a family member tend to have compassion on the socially disadvantaged and wish a better life for them. They think it’s right for our American family to help them get up on their feet; “pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps” isn’t a family way of thinking about the less fortunate.
“Family-oriented” people tend to think most of the poor are deserving of special help, even through spreading the family’s wealth around. These people look to the common good of the whole family and seek ways to move toward true equality of all.
Then there are people who look at everyone around them, anywhere they go in America, as individuals not related to themselves (except, of course, their own blood or maybe shirttail relatives). They view America as a whole not as a family but as an aggregate of individuals competing with each other. Of course, many of these people believe viewing America that way benefits all as everyone, hopefully, strives to better themselves.
The problem is that people in this second category tend to be blind to oppression–social causes of disadvantage and poverty. To them, all or most of the poor choose poverty and are therefore undeserving of anything.
People in the first category tend to think of poverty and all its awful consequences as a disease or disability. The poor are their broken-winged family members (except the few who really do choose it and just need tough love). People in the second category tend to think of poverty and its consequences as tragic but deserved. The poor are not family but in some sense aliens—outsiders to the Great American Way in which everyone who wants to can flourish.
I think this difference of perspective underlies most of the contentious arguments displayed so vividly on these pages and similar ones throughout America. And the difference it makes is this: “family-oriented people” believe it is to the American family’s benefit to eradicate poverty; individual-oriented people believe it is to their own and other motivated individual’s benefit to leave the poor to their own devices with an occasional handout to someone they think might deserve a morsel that falls from their table.
I think that the story of Judas is completely ironic. He was seemingly more concerned about the poor than Jesus (at least he thought he was).
There are things that can be done which will entrench a people in poverty and loose them of any will at bettering themselves. This kind of “help” is much worse than simply doing nothing.
And frankly, I’m offended when some suggest that taking resources that I worked for and “helping” others is kindness. It is theft and it is political bribery in a quest for raw political power. The Great Society failed and the War on Poverty was lost – and we are all the worse for it. The “family-oriented” position (while good-intentioned) is bankrupt of goodness and good results.
(So you like the opinion pages, do you?
Historian T.R. Fehrenbach wrote a history of Texas published in 1968. One of his conclusions was that Texas had the ethos of the frontier, where the strong live and the weak die. As a man born and raised in Texas, I have come to believe he is right about that. While his description of Texas values is accurate, that does not make this compassionless stance right in the sight of God. If God had adopted this attitude toward sinners, then Jesus never would have been sent to die for our sins. At that time the Bible describes us as helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6), even enemies of God (Rom. 5:10). By Texas values, we would have been left to die in our helplessness. But God is apparently not in favor of Texas values, because he demonstrated his love for us by sending his son to die for us that we might be reconciled to him (Rom. 5:8).
That is what the Bible says, but I’m not sure you should publish it in Waco.
-Barry
I agree that there tend to be two broad responses to poverty, but I don’t think that means that there are only two understandings of poverty. I think your second category lumps two different understandings together because they share the same general political response: fewer benefits to the poor. Of course there are ultra-libertarians who view love Ayn Rand and don’t believe in helping people–forget about those people.
There are people I know (at my church!) who devote an extraordinary amount of their own personal time worrying, ministering, and serving people in a low-income neighborhood in our city. They are all conservative Republicans and I have reason to suspect that they have typical conservative Republican attitudes towards welfare and the like. But their view of the poor aligns with your first category. A lot can be said about how to reconcile the outlook with the political commitments but I would just say this, when you actually work face to face with poor people, you realize that their biggest problems are not economic and throwing money or benefits at the problem will not help them.
I never suggested throwing money at the poor. I’m in favor of effective government programs to get people out of poverty: job training, job securing, temporary employment when they can’t find work, etc., better education, etc. I never understand why people think that when I advocate for the poor they assume I want the government to throw money at them.
I don’t think I was suggesting that your solution to poverty was more benefits. What I am saying is that it is easy for people to care about poor people and work with them without supporting government programs to help the poor. From the perspective of people who work with poor people, government programs don’t seem to address the crucial problems.
Well, I disagree. Or maybe we’re talking about different matters. I’ll be posting something about this soon. How is the government’s program to provide life-saving medicines to HIV-positive children not helping them? It’s literally saving their lives. Also, I might agree that current government programs don’t help as much as other government programs would help. I think the solution isn’t to abolish government programs to aid the poor but to fix them or replace them with ones that do. My objection is to those so-called compassionate conservatives who want to abolish all government welfare programs and entitlement programs and trust non-profit organizations to pick up the slack. That’s a very popular view these days.
Actually, I’ve been devastatingly poor. I’ve been upright, honest, frugal and made good and right choices while being really poor. Sometimes, it really is about the money and being trapped in a cycle you just can’t get out of – maybe something like the dad got really sick with a horrible infection and almost died and couldn’t work. Maybe it’s the dad working such long hours (12 hour days, six days a week) that there was no time to put in job applications, or maybe he’s put in hundreds online but there is no time to get the further education (Master’s level or above) degrees that are needed to earn more income. I’ve always thought that money wasn’t usually the problem when someone is trapped in poverty – maybe they don’t know how to save, to live within their means, didn’t get an education, etc….but have learned that this is truly not always the case. Sometimes? Money – or the lack of it – really *is* the problem. (This was my family’s situation in the last several years.)
The other thing I’ve noticed, Roger, is that we are often unaware of just how much commitment/help/involvement it is going to take to really help people out of poverty or their spiral of difficult situations. It’s almost like bringing a deathly ill person back to life – we have to hold them tenderly, spoon nourishment into their mouths, wipe their brow, carefully administer meds until they gain strength (and confidence and knowledge of self-care.) Eventually, maybe, they will gain strength enough to function on their own – but they’ll likely need help for some time. It’s not always as simple – with those who have been in deep poverty for a long time – as giving them money and then expecting that they are going to know what to do with it nor that their problems will be immediately relieved. I think – whatever the problem – money, relationships, health – the Christian who is devoted to service needs to expect a serious level of commitment and devotion to help. It takes time.
Right. As I said to another commenter, I have never advocated giving money to the poor. I favor vouchers for food, rent and clothes for emergency needs and employment (training, help finding, as a last resort the government putting to work). I think a decent job for those willing to work is a basic human right.
@Rob,
The facts bear out your observations. (From http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers) “The fact is that self-described “conservatives” in America are more likely to give—and give more money—than self-described “liberals.” In the year 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more dollars to charity than households headed by a liberal. And this discrepancy in monetary donations is not simply an artifact of income differences. On the contrary, liberal families in these data earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families.”
It seems that the liberals would rather be generous with other peoples’ money and resources.
An interesting proposed dichotomy. Some others are: government should deal with poverty v. private, family and individual assistance and charity; foreign poverty is more dire ($1 a day survival) and deserving of our resources v. we should spend our resources on our citizens even though their poverty usually includes cars, phone and TV; giftedness in mercy and compassion v. giftedness in stewardship/administration; world’s ‘zero sum’ economy v. God’s ‘test me in this’ economy. As you said, most people have some mixture of these beliefs or believe in both/and.
Because Christians differ in giftedness, and citizens differ in experience, perspective and responsibility, I hope we listen to one another without demonizing others’ perspectives.
Although the distinction you make is interesting, I think it misrepresents the liberal perspective while making the “individual-orientation” look more reasonable than it actually is. It simply isn’t true, after all, that every other citizen is a member of one’s family.
The liberal justification for redistribution might be better understood as an implication of the fair terms of our cooperation with one another. As citizens, we all benefit from the cooperation of everyone else. We need to cooperate. How then should we distribute the advantages of our mutual cooperation? How, in other words, should we think about the fair terms of our cooperation? One prominent liberal answer is this: we should imagine what terms we would agree to if we didn’t know our particular place in society. With our individual biases thus subdued, we would arguably only agree to terms that secured for individuals that which each has reason to deeply value regardless of his/her particular place in society (i.e., our basic rights and freedoms). Secondly, we would only agree to terms that secured equality of opportunity and prioritized the interests of those who would be worst off.
The progressive redistribution of wealth is a means of satisfying the fair terms of cooperation, reasonably conceived. As such, it regards a matter of basic justice between citizens. Those who enjoy great benefits from our society while disregarding the fair terms of cooperation violate justice, their post-hoc preferences for an “individual-oriented” perspective notwithstanding.
Your proposal is consistent with, if not based on, that of John Rawls in A Theory of Justice. I happen to think Rawls’ proposals come closest to being a secular analogue to Christian compassion.
Right. As (perhaps) the closest secular analogue to Christian compassion, I’d expect it to be the first choice of political justice among Christian–or at least among those Christians who value the ideal of respectful cooperation with their fellow citizens, many of whom, reasonably enough, do not share the particular religious doctrines of Christianity.
My impression, however, is that Rawls’s views are disproportionately unpopular among American evangelicals. Any thoughts as to why this might be the case?
For the few who know about them, I agree. I suppose it has something to do with Rawls’ liberalism and secularism. Instead of looking at the theory and its actual effects (if put into practice) they tend to just look at the theorist–secular Harvard professor basing his views on reason alone and never quoting scripture, etc. But among those who have actually read him and understand him, I would guess they (evangelicals) object to what seems to be his positive view of human nature. I have come to conclude, however, that his theory works even if one believes in total depravity because ultimately it appeals to self-interest.
@C. Ehrlich
The most crucial words in your reply seem to be “we should imagine”. The rest is out of Karl Marx. While he was a smart man, his theories have resulted in extra-ordinary poverty and cruelty as they have played out in the world. Much better is to have compassion within a system where “the worker is worth his keep” and “he who does not work does not eat”. This has a far, far better track record of generosity and Christian love.
I’ve never read a word of Karl Marx.
@RogerOlson
You don’t need to have read Karl Marx. There are many who put forward his precepts. For instance, you’ve probably read Gustavo Guitierez concerning Latin American Liberation Theology. He wants to blend Marxism with Christianity. But there are many others who take inspiration from Marx directly or indirectly. A good summary quote from Marx about his thinking is: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Some find this sort of thinking in the early chapters of Acts, though I believe they are mistaken.
Mr. Reisendorf, your worries are unfounded here. You might profit from studying Rawls, or even from thinking about what is called the “difference principle”–which is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the “two principles of justice” that arise from his theory. You’ll notice that this principle is sensitive to the sorts of economic considerations that seem to concern you.
Mr. Ehrlich,
I see the Difference Principle as completely unworkable. We are all human and motivated by self-interest. I work 60+ hours each week to provide for my family. If I could work 30 to get the same results, why wouldn’t I take it? The greater rewards must go greater producers and to defy this seems too idealistic for reality. This has been tried time and again and I know of no large-scale successes utilizing this kind of principle, but many large-scale disasters. The 5-Year Plan comes to mind.
I do generally agree with the Fair Equality of Opportunity theory. Difficulties arise concerning equal opportunity based on roughly equal natural ability, however, when actual people are brought into the equation. Some people have cultural values that have them sleep late. While it says nothing about their natural ability, it might say plenty about their ability to do a morning-time job. Some people cannot communicate well. Some people don’t get along well with others. Some cannot follow instructions well. Some cannot lead people well. There are so many factors that come into this that are bound up in being human (and therefore unquantifiable), that this principle (if made into a law) would serve as a wedge and excuse for people to be their worst. And who would set themselves up as arbiters?
I like his First Principle of Liberty – though I like Locke’s formula of God-given rights as “Life, Liberty and (ownership of) Property” better.
Apart from those, I just think that it’s misguided to try and order society in these top-down ways. Let people be free as much as possible – and in that, let them be free to be good to each other. A forced goodness is no goodness at all in the same way as a forced decision for Christ is no decision for Christ. They require freedom. So I guess in my “Original Position”, I value freedom above equality.
But, of course, Rawls’ point is that, under the veil of ignorance, you wouldn’t. You’d seek the best way to balance them. You would maximize the minimum. Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness nowhere dictates absolute equality or absolute equality of opportunity. It dictates only that the system work so that increases in the standard of living of the wealthy automatically result in increases of the standard of living of the poor (who wish to participate, of course). I think his theory is designed to justify a highly graduated income tax/redistribution of wealth as what all reasonable and self-interested persons would choose under the veil of ignorance. Of course, they would also choose not to abolish incentives. The proposal is complicated and subtle, but I consider it the closest secular one to Christian compassion on a societal scale. Charity just can’t accomplish justice for all. I’m going to post on this either today or tomorrow.
Roger, I could not agree more. Very insightful. I would welcome an elaboration addressing the underlying theological and philosophical implications for much of Bible-belt Christianity.
Thank you for this post and your other posts, which I have been very interested in reading.
I am not an American but I suppose that roughly the same thing could be written about many other countries. I agree with the sentiment expressed in your column and I am 100% behind efforts to tackle inequalities and alleviate poverty in any way possible (whether it would be possible to eradicate it completely is debatable; I think even countries like Sweden with a very extensive welfare state still have some, albeit fewer, poor people).
However, I also happen to say that I regard my country as “a collection of individuals unrelated to each other”. This seems reasonable and to correspond to reality. Even in a small country such as mine, the vast majority of people will forever remain unknown to me. There is an upper-limit of about to the number of people one can know personally (Dunbar’s number) and I have always found rather strange the suggestion that I should feel some kind of special relationship with someone simply in virtue of the fact that I happened to have been born on the same territory.
My concern is that, with imperfect human beings, “we are just one big family” can easily turn into jingoism, nationalism and a tendency to think that our countrymen are somehow more deserving of our protection and help than foreigners. I’d say that the most common attitude in Europe these days is to indeed think that “we are all family and should help each other” (there is a lot of support for the welfare state, which is just fine), but this attitude also leads to intolerance and a lack of concern for the plight of the poor in other countries. The family rhetoric has been used to support discrimination, with the seemingly common-sensical argument that just as we would rather hire a family member than an outsider, we should rather hire the native-born rather than immigrants or would-be immigrants.
My view would be that we are not a family (or rather, if there is a family, it is the human race) but a collection of individuals who, although not directly related to each other, should still cooperate and be charitable toward each other. If anything, that there is no special bond that unites two people from the same country should ideally, in my opinion, lead to an enlargement of our moral circle to the entire human race, rather than to its shrinking until it only encompasses our own selves.
the government should have no right to steal from me to give to low life poverty no matter the reason.
Have you been reading Ayn Rand and/or Robert Nozick? Try reading the Bible instead.