|
Recently we were speculating why there are so many welfare recipients in
cities versus small towns or rural areas. We know the standard reason
why the un-employed migrate to the city is, "that's where the jobs
are." However, we think there is another reason. It's
where the 'anonymity' is. By that we mean that
non-judgmental programs have been instituted based on the assumption that
'problems' exist and the programs are there to accommodate them. We
saw a big sign here proclaiming that the organization was "fulfilling
needs not yet imagined." Judgements about why someone is on
welfare, why they may be remaining on it are strictly forbidden in the big
city. In the big city you can apply to an 'agency' of government
where 'un-employed' is an adequate identity which commands a regular
paycheck. The requirements of un-employment being less demanding than
the requirements of employment, it's no wonder that many make this 'career
choice'.
Let's take an imaginary look at what might happen at the local church
charity in a small town where people know one another. If Bill comes
in looking for a handout, Ann behind the desk might be skeptical as
to why Bill is saying one thing about his life and doing another by driving
around in a big, expensive car. She knows he's been hanging out with
an unwed mother and suspects he might be taking her welfare
assistance. She's heard that when the welfare checks arrive to the
unwed mothers in the city, the unwed dads call it Mother's Day.
How do you think a charity using common-sense judgment might evaluate
Bill's request for assistance? Also, what if Ann knows that Sam at
the hardware store has been looking for some counter help? She might
send Bill over there instead of automatically writing an assistance check.
Now, imagine a world where there is no public assistance for unwed
mothers. Instead, each family must take care of their own. Say
one day your daughter or sister, Sally, comes home and announces that it's
her right to have children and she's pregnant. She'll need several
hundred dollars a month from each family member to pay the rent, buy food
and take care of her child. How would you respond? Would you
encourage her to have more children? Do you think some families would
begin telling their children that unwed pregnancy is a bad idea?
When people help people one-on-one they get up close and personal.
Both sides of the transaction get involved with each other. The
donors feel good about helping and the recipients feel gratitude for the
help. More importantly, real charity expects the best of the recipient and
that expectation is a moral stimulant to the recipient to get his act
together and be worthy of the assistance given.
For an explanation of how bureaucratic "compassion" developed,
here's an excerpt from our interview with retired Senator Malcolm
Wallop. (full interview here "http://peterandhelenevans.com/int-wallop.html")
Senator Wallop: Well, if you go back to de Tocqueville, he warned us
against what would happen when people learned that, by their vote, they
could spend other people's money on themselves. By and large that's what
we've done. If you look at the liberal tendency in this country and the
tenets of modern liberalism, you'll see that it's to create constituencies
that are dependants. The more you spend on people from other people's
resources, the more they demand that those expenditures increase, and the
more is the expectancy that the government 'owes' them. Thus
"entitlements" were born.
One of the more fascinating things is that, if you look at charity these
days - and Americans are extremely charitable people - the government is
still involved in a big way. For example, if you look at the Catholic
Church, which is very dependent on the government for Catholic Charities,
you see what happened, in San Francisco and other places, where it had to
agree to things that are totally against the tenets of Catholic faith, in
order to get money from the government. For instance they are obliged now
to provide medical insurance for abortions, even though that's totally
against Church doctrine. Government created a major dependency. They are
not unique in that.
Peter: Right now we're reading a book by Marvin Olasky, "the Tragedy
of American Compassion." Public discussions were going on, even back
in the late 19th century, about the risks of creating a dependency on
"the dole," and even during the Depression most people would try
anything and everything before taking money from the government directly.
They would much rather take a job from the government, rather than take
money directly as welfare.
[end of excerpt]
Government should be the last place people go for help. Liberals
would prefer that government be the first choice. Before government
intervened, charities proliferated in this country. They are still
active, but it's now easier for those in trouble to get money from the
bureaucracy. But they don't get the moral incentive which is the only
thing that will enable them to stand on their own feet.
The United Nations is complaining that some nations and private charities
are providing aid directly to the survivors of the tsunami in South Asia,
claiming that only the U.N. can provide "legitimate aid."
At first we thought this was just arrogance, telling people they can't
decide for themselves who should provide aid. However, in light of
Tocqueville's warning, is the UN merely trying to create a dependency on
itself, fearing that other agencies will do a better job?
Locally and internationally, we need charities who can become involved with
their charges and provide moral as well as material aid.
Peter and Helen Evans, "http://peterandhelenevans.com. This husband
and wife team - international teachers, freelance writers and speakers -
teach a philosophical approach to conservatism. They are also
real estate agents in the Washington, DC area.
.
*******
By Peter and Helen
Evans. This husband and wife team - both international teachers and authors - teach a philosophical approach to conservatism. They have helped thousands of adults in more than thirty countries realize more of the best of themselves through responsibility.
|
