If Not The Government, Who Will Help?
By Peter and Helen Evans (01/10/05)
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.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Peter and Helen Evans
