Challenge To The Left
By Peter and Helen Evans (05/24/04)
During a conversation the other day, we realized that much of our writing has been "preaching to the converted." So we thought we would direct a few articles to the Left, the Democrats and especially those 'un-decided' in the middle, who might think they are Independents. We'd like to address some ideas that seem to be mainstays of the Left, but that we consider to be mis-conceptions in need of clarification.
It is important to a self-governing nation that, when confronting differences of opinion, we at least make the attempt to elevate the debate above the sort of overblown, accusatory rhetoric and partisan name-calling that tend to simply ossify positions rather than illuminate issues. In that spirit, we will try to respond to any thoughtful questions or criticism from readers that these 'clarifications' may provoke, and which may also be included in subsequent articles.
So, on to some misconceptions. Although they are numbered, these are in no particular order and, if you have any you would care to suggest, Left or Right, we would be glad to consider them.
Misconception #1: The rich get richer by making the poor poorer. This fallacy is applied to nations as well as to individuals and often associated with the word 'exploitation'. It is actually a conclusion based on the mistaken assumption that there is only a finite amount of wealth in the world. Wealth, however, is created, and it's created by people. The world, as a whole, has more wealth now than it had 50 years ago. It didn't just changes owners; it increased, absolutely. The rich don't become wealthy by taking from the poor. Even Robin Hood was clever enough to "take from the rich to give to the poor." The rich become wealthy, and then rich, by imagining, and then working to produce, something that many other people (even the poor) recognize as valuable and voluntarily buy. There is some lingering Robin Hood sensibility in the thinking of the Left, who tend to see poverty as an (unfair) "inequality of distribution" rather than what it is, a (natural) variation of talent, motivation and discipline.
Would you vote Democrat, knowing that their social policy decisions are based on a mistake?
Misconception #2: The poor are a permanent class. Economists often divide the population into fifths, based on income. The bottom fifth classifies "the poor." The top fifth classifies "the rich." The three fifths in the middle are "the middle class." The misconception arises when we think that these 'classifications' refer to actual 'classes', that is, groups whose membership remains constant over time. In fact, most of the individuals who make up "the poor" do move out of that economic class. There's a constant progression for most members of the class from poverty to middle class to wealthy. Of course, some members of "the rich" move down in economic classes from time to time, too. The 'classes' may remain the same, but their populations don't.
America has been called a classless society, because no one is required to stay in the class where they were born. Nor does anything but our own talent, motivation and discipline (or lack thereof) enable us to change our situation and, thus, move from one class to another. At least that's the structure our Founding Fathers instituted for us. However, the welfare state has taken initiative and dignity from some of our population by chaining them in dependency. Instead of the temporary assistance it was meant to be, welfare had developed as a way of life. Now, after welfare reform, which broke those chains, more and more people are discovering (or re-discovering) the satisfaction of self-reliance and upward mobility. They don't even want to hear about the bureaucratic Robin Hood who wants to keep them poor, so it can keep up the appearance of 'helping' them.
Would you really want a nation where someone else decides what's "good enough" for you? That's what you'll get if you vote Democrat.
Misconception #3: Conservatives have no compassion. The true meaning of compassion is "suffering with" another. It does not mean taking away the pain. We all have things to learn in life. As kids, we stumble and fall before we learn to walk. If we weren't allowed those painful stumbles we wouldn't have as much incentive to learn. In fact, conservatives are very compassionate, and also have faith in human nature that we'll learn from our mistakes.
Conservatives are very much in favor of helping others, but on a one-to-one basis or through voluntary, local organizations. These personal contacts, between those who can help and those who are truly in need, create a sense of community. On the one hand, they stimulate our natural compassion and generosity and, on the other hand, they stimulate our natural gratitude to our community as well as our motivation to become able to help others. Impersonal government programs cannot, by their nature, be compassionate and can never be 'enough' to meet the needs of individuals. They cannot stimulate a sense of gratitude, only a sense of entitlement. They do not motivate us to become able to help others, but only to remain 'qualified' to continue to receive 'benefits.'
Conservatives have so much faith in individuals that they will compassionately allow them to fail or stumble first, knowing that being able to walk by yourself is the only true freedom. Do you really want to live in a country where you are coerced (through taxation) to support programs that only perpetuate the problems they are supposed to 'solve'? Wouldn't you like to be free to choose who, and how, you will help? If you label yourself a Liberal, you are giving up your right to choose.
We hope these few clarifications of misconceptions will be thought-provoking. We welcome thoughtful questions and will be addressing other misconceptions in articles to come.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Peter and Helen Evans
