I was listening to a local area talk show recently. The host is somewhat right-leaning. He was having an excitable exchange with a left-leaning caller. They were discussing the social ills and how best to address them. The caller and the host both agreed on the problem-- a lack of cohesive, traditional family structure. They also both agreed on the solution-- a more cohesive, traditional family structure. The difference was in the means to that solution.
The caller had the usual liberal talking-points. Society's wealth is disproportionately distributed. Those of us who are more advantaged need to pay more taxes so that government programs can help the disadvantaged out of the cycle of poverty and crime. The host had his usual conservative quips. We have been throwing money and government programs at these problems for decades and they are arguably worse now then when we started. The government is not the solution to our problems.
Finally, the caller said, "Well, if you don't want the government to do it, then who should?" This was probably the best question of the whole exchange. Unfortunately, both the caller and host quickly moved on and the question was not really addressed. This is exactly where the liberal philosophy is half right. Some people are stuck in cycles of poverty and crime and they desperately need somebody to come along and help them out. Of course, the conservative philosophy is also correct. Government is not the best "somebody" to do this.
The problem with both points of view is that the problem is viewed as a systemic problem instead of a personal problem. If the problem is systemic then we do need to find systems-wide strategies as means to the solution. The problem, though, is not systemic (as in a problem with a system); the problem is personal (as in a problem with individuals). You cannot treat a personal problem with systemic strategies. Personal problems have to be treated individually. This takes much more than money. It takes people-- real people-- to spend time with individuals and educate, model, and walk next them as they deal with and work through the problems.
For example, welfare programs do provide means for individuals that are in need the ability to obtain food and shelter. What is missing? For one thing, isn't it just as important for someone to come alongside a needy individual and show them how to balance a check book, live within their means, write a decent resume, fill out job applications, and just provide the moral support needed to keep on keeping on as they struggle to get back on their feet? Sure there are programs that are set up to provide some of these services. Many of them, though, are set up in such a way that the individuals who need them have to take the initiative to seek out those services. What these individuals need is someone to take the initiative to come alongside them and show them what they need to do and help them begin to do it.
This is the reason the government is not very good at this sort of thing. The government does not have the time or resources to spend the time necessary with individuals to meet the needs in the way they need to be met. Just look at how the government handles anything else. Government education is set up as a systemic approach that is designed to educate large numbers of students in basically the same way. It is not designed to teach the individual. How does the government run the post office? The postal system is designed as a system. If you want to send a letter or package you must make sure it conforms to the systems that have been set up. I am not in any way arguing against public education or the post office here. I am simply pointing out that the government does not, and cannot, deal with individuals very well. The government always deals with problems systemically, not personally.
Now that I have tried to express why I believe the government is not the best "somebody" to deal with these types of issues, I must go back to the original question. If you don't want the government to do it, who should? Well if we say it is a personal, individual problem, then it stands to reasons that individuals must be the ones to meet the need. I think this sounds alot like what the Bible teaches us about the poor. The poor are not simply a group we give money to. The poor are people that need to be treated as such.
It is easy for the liberal to say that we need to redistribute wealth to make it more equitable for the poor. It is also easy for the conservative to say that government is not the answer. It would be nice if the "poor problem" could be fixed by simply giving money via charity or taxes. If we give all our possessions to feed the poor and have not love, it profits us (and them) nothing. It is fine to give money, and I think we should. We then also need to show love individually and come alongside and truly help the poor. Show someone how to deal with the daily struggles. Sit down and teach someone how to balance a check book and prioritize spending. Allow another person to spend time with you so they can learn how to live outside of a cycle of poverty and crime. But, then again, that takes time and real, honest investment. I think I will just throw some change in a red kettle and go about my day.
0 comments:
Post a Comment