Charity Begins at Home
I would have no objection to bearing an oppressive tax load if I saw the money that is often cast to the indifferent winds going instead to help those of my fellow citizens who are struggling to survive: the unemployed, the homeless, the infirm, and the aged. We are ranked as one of the wealthier countries in the world. At the same time, the number of Canadians who live below the poverty line (according to various statistical reports, the low-income cutoff range varies between 10.8% and 16.2%), who cannot receive adequate medical attention or afford the price of pharmaceutical medicines, who lie on gurneys in the corridors of what look like third-world hospitals (nearly 690,000 for the year 2009 in my home province of Quebec alone, if they are fortunate enough to survive the interminable wait times for admission), who malinger in decrepit “senior residences,” who live on the street in a land of punishing winters (the CBC pegs the number of the shelterless at a quarter of a million), and who have finally surrendered to despair is a spreading blot of shame upon our society. I do not have access to comparable American statistics, but, adjusting for population, I would presume they are not appreciably different.
Lest I be misunderstood, I would like readers to know that my wife and I give generously to charity, both local and foreign. This is nothing less than a civic and humanitarian duty. Still, I believe that Confucius was right when he deposed in the Analects that responsibility begins at home, starting with one’s family and moving outward to one’s community and thence to one’s country. The world, so to speak, comes later — unless, of course, events beyond our borders impact directly upon home and country. In such cases, we must obviously intervene there so that disaster does not strike here — a preemptive application of the Analects.
As Bret Stephens writes in the Wall Street Journal, aid schemes to underdeveloped nations benefit mainly “the well-connected at the expense of the truly needy, divert resources from where they are needed most, and crowd out local enterprise.” All this works, he continues, “to salve the consciences of people whose dimly benign intention is to ‘do something.’” With respect to Haiti, for example, the largesse that has been pouring in for years resulted in neither a functioning infrastructure nor quake-resistant buildings. But it did enrich a cohort of unscrupulous individuals, not least the former president, liberation theologian Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
I recall several years back asking a Haitian taxi driver in Montreal, which boasts one of the largest Haitian communities in North America, what measures he would recommend to rescue the island from its ongoing squalor, penury, and dereliction. More aid? “No,” he replied, “we need to be reoccupied.” My interlocutor would have been outraged by the witless comments of Seumas Milne of the Guardian, who called the effects of the recent earthquake “man-made” and blamed the devastation on the poverty imposed on Haiti by Western nations. This, of course, is abject nonsense, but it is an infallible sign of the vapid simpering and righteous indignation that vitiates much Western thinking.
The fact is that another approach is required. I am not arguing that we remain oblivious to the tragedy of others or that foreign aid should be discontinued, as Stephens seems to propose. But I do contend that such disbursements must be applied more intelligently and with stringent oversight so that they find their way into the hands of the right people and go to promote a culture of security, initiative, and entrepreneurial vitality. Just as importantly, the aid bonanza must be curtailed. Many of our own are in want. Tax money should go mainly into retraining programs, new start-ups, available housing, better hospitals, more doctors and nurses, cleaning up the bureaucratic deadwood, fostering a saner business climate, research and development, and projects to help people get on their own two feet again. Whatever surplus may be left over from a target budget intended to resolve or alleviate our own pressing dilemmas may then be designated to help strangers in need — assuming we can do it properly.
But we need to get our priorities straight. Let us give what we can to those who have been persecuted by man or nature, let us help to the best of our abilities, let us make sacrifices, if we wish, for the deliverance of suffering humanity. But let us also see clearly. The game of realpolitik, for example, of seeking influence in other parts of the globe through excessive aid liberality, should not be allowed to trump the reality of our domestic predicaments or distract from internal necessity. Nor should we act out of some absurd sense of neo-colonial guilt or a facile empathy that ignores our own grievous distress. There are vast areas of misery and deprivation in our own lands that have not been meaningfully addressed and will continue to fester unless we rein in our brackish sentimentality and determine to help not only our “fellow man” but, to a far greater extent than at present, our neighbors and our fellow citizens. They, too, are part of “the world.” And they take precedence.
Solway’s sentiments ring true for me. “Designer” causes — many of them foreign — tend to grab more than their fair share of the headlines. And, as a consequence, of the cash.
His point is well taken: that pressing problems exist at home as well as abroad — and that they, too, deserve to be addressed.
Moreover, doing so doesn’t involve throwing money down an international rat hole of bureaucratic mismanagement. (To my way of thinking, the United Nations and a good many NGOs presently comprise a cesspool of incompetence and corruption.)
An “acting locally” policy has one other advantage, as Solway points out: It escapes the thoroughly distasteful result of being bashed after the fact by the “world community.”
A compatriot of Solway’s — singer / songwriter Sarah McLachlan — embodies (for me) a subset of the problem. She is often there to assist the needy of the world. Human and animal sufferers alike have benefited from her benevolence.
Over the past several years, she has lent her fame to the ASPCA here in the states. McLachlan’s altruistic intentions are admirable. Her heart is certainly in the right place.
But, inasmuch as the title of the organization she is promoting implies a national scope that doesn’t really exist (the ASPCA would more accurately be named the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (see: In Sarah’s Arms http://emmeffemm.com/id97.html ), she is helping to facilitate the funneling of animal-welfare donations from across the U.S. to New York City.
In much the same way that citizens of (so-called) affluent countries such as Canada and America are encouraged to turn a blind eye to the needy all around them, McLachlan might be (inadvertently) helping to siphon support away from local causes.
I admire all who endeavor to assist those who are suffering, irrespective of geography. But all too often, the good intentions of decent people are grossly exploited.
Like the author, my late wife and I have always given a generous portion of our income to the church and others such as the Salvation Army, the Red Cross and to Cancer research. At the same time, we were always skeptical of giving (or to our government giving), to the UN or foreign governments because we knew it was lining the pockets of despots and thugs. Callous as it may seem, I would highly support the (greatly publicized) complete and total cessation of all foreign aid for one year. This is not because of our current financial mess, I have contended for years that our largess has only purchased contempt, not aid for the needy. If we were to suspend all foreign aid for a period, and then restore it ONLY based on 1) those countries that conform to our way of thinking, and 2) monetary disbursement made only by U.S. personnel in-country.
Also, the curtailment of our current financial support of the UN should be immediate if not sooner! It is a farce that we pay such an excessive (30%) amount of the annual UN budget, while getting nothing out of it but criticism and complaints. It should also be noted that the vast majority of foreign UN employees (who live high on the hog by any measure) have those jobs not because of education, ability or knowledge – but rather because of patronage, kickbacks and nepotism, really excellent criteria for representation of their governments. It is time we got some backbone!
I have always wondered what the obsession is with aiding every worldwide relief effort, yet doing little to relieve internal problems of its own.Not only that, but many of these nations are hostile to US interests.
With unemployment going over the cliff, where exactly does the US get money to ship around the world? From taxpayers of course.
I totally agree. We try to do too much for others, and it just doesn’t pay. We should focus our attention on our own problems, within our own borders.
And who knows, without Daddy USA there to wipe their noses for them, some of these whiners might figure out how to take care of themselves.
I can think of no Foreign aid program that has bee effective since the Marshal Plan. Most aid ends up being a cash cow for some corrupt leader such as Baby Doc. Amen and Arrifat ( how did his wife get a $300,000,000 estate again?)
Thank you for the honest and spot on commentary. Your last two paragraphs were the most salient. We give too much to too many undeserving peoples and nations, and we get nothing in return. Not even a thank you.
We have too many Americans who are in a tax bind, but our government also spends our money like it’s their own. Fine if private charities and our celebs want to spend their money, but we the people should be asked if our government is to spend our money overseas.
And as I read the Hartford, CT Courant today, I find to my shock and amazement, that illegal Haitians are being given “temporary” legal status to stay in the US facilitated by “free” legal advice and help from the American Lawyer Guild and the American Immigration Lawyers Assoc. The ALG must be part of the NLG which has done its share of defending and supporting anti-American, leftist programs, issues and politics. The AILA will not publish who their benefactors are but as their name implies, they help immigrants get into the US.
How much more can America take? How much more can she withstand before she too becomes a Haiti, or Cuba? Why is the left so intent or destroying the one really good nation and experiment in freedom and liberty this world has ever known?
good essay David.
I have said many times ..the UN needs to go. the UN needs to be unfunded.
WELL SAID ! Let the individual give as a matter of personal generosity and freedom. The more the Government taxes and “redistributes” our hard earned money the less inclined we are to shell out of pocket. Not only do we not trust the recipient governments – now we can’t trust our own. It is so easy to be generous with other peoples money. Personally I will no longer give one dime unless I can place it in the hand of the needy and am glad to do so. Family first, neighbors second, all others, if any left over, third. Begin by getting the government out of our pockets – then voluntary charity will flourish .
We should walk away from the UN…we won’t but we should.
Movie Stars gather to get relief for anything not American
we give locally,never internationally. there are groups in other states that we give to that we have looked in to.
Give where you live. It makes your soul smile
Another point: why haven’t the oil-rich countries of the Middle East contributed anything for Haiti’s aid? Could it be that they are only required by their religion to help other Muslims, to the exclusion of the rest of humanity? Just asking.
The self-aggrandizement and feeling of moral superiority generated by conspicuous compassion is the very lifeblood of liberalism. What america does in disasters involves short-term activities that are media-friendly. I would imagine most of our haiti aid will end up in the swiss bank accounts of government officials where all the other foreign aid to third world countries goes.
We are giving them millions if not billions in aid, and we sit idly as they arrest our citizens for kidnapping orphans… Its irrational behavior unless you apply the conspicuous compassion model to it, then its consistent behavior.
I generally stand with Milton Friedman on the issue of foreign aid. He was agin it.
Not only is our “foreign aid” not helping the poor, it usually does not reach them. Then, even if it does, is it really helping, or is it creating unhealthy dependency and laziness? Why work when some U. S. aid, or some visiting “missionaries” (with camera in hand), handing out bags of free food, may show up?
We need to help the poor in the U.S. and other countries create a permanent system where people can provide for them selves. I live in Honduras where my wife and i operate a Christian orphanage. We see poverty all around us, but it is usually self inflicted by poor farming methods, lack of Biblical morals, and laziness. So when you wade through the snow to go to work in the U. S., please remember that you may be helping Don Pedro, who may have four women, and twelve children have more time to relax.
Recently we have seen U. S. foreign aid being used as a tool to make Honduras a puppet communist country for Hugo Chavez. Our ambassador here, Hugo Llorens, working with the State Department, has been plotting to destroy the Honduras Constitution and the rule of law by withholding promised aid. So far, they have failed.
Please send farmers-not money to poor countries. Our ministry has a small farm that i use to teach good productive agriculture to our children and neighbors, and to grow corn, beans, etc to feed our children. We see people who have access to land, but they either don’t know how to farm, or find that working interferes with their social life.
We may be able to throw all the fish back into the water, but we can rescue some.
bobbyhonduras@yahoo.com
Excellent article and exactly right and as one person here commented it is the liberal do-gooder attitude with no thought to consequences or actual good that governs these give aways. It is just another form of redistributed the wealth of the person who actually earned it. The only disagreement I have is that when there is a crisis such as floods, famine, hurricanes and the devastation in Indonesia I feel we should respond as we are the best equipped to do so. If we took the money we give to Egypt, and other countries whose people hate us, this of course includes the UN we would have the means to help in emergencies. I approve wholeheartedly in food and medical relief to places like Darfur. We need to pick and choose what our money goes to. As for helping the poor and needy in our own country get rid of the socialist and demand their replacements adhere to strict balanced budgets and government oversight. The liberal, socialist policies are a total failure in Canada and the U.S. as they have been every where in the world where they’ve been tried. Until we rid ourselves of the communistic, socialists our country will continue downhill with everyone living in misery except of course the elites running the country.
Thank you so much for a great arcticle… now if we could only convince the current regime running amok…err…policies and things in Washington, the USA would be better off.
How do we get the “leaders” to listen to great suggestions like this?
could not agree more. foreign aid should be done through charitable, giving done through each individual’s free will. our aid through the UN, World Bank, WHO et al often simply enriches those who need it least, and hate us to boot. I have friends who work at World Bank….you’d kill for their compensation packages.
Do you know what the difference is between a man and a dog? If you find them lying wounded and sick, and you take them home and nurse them both back to health, the dog will never bite you.
Do not expect gratitude. Ingratitude is the nature of Man. Charity is its own reward. If you expect to get something out of it, it is no longer charity. You are buying something.
The key to charity and other do-gooder stuff is to offer a hand up, not a handout. All American foreign policy seems to center on handouts. It’ll never work. We are like children in our expectations.
I’m not sure you completely understand what “charity” means.
And settle down on the “ungrateful” claims. It’s early days. There have been problems with aid delivery – exacerbated by haiti’s own problems. But the people who get food and care WILL remember who gave it to them. Ignore the shouting from the media and the chancers – it’s what happens on the ground that matters.
I think this is an interesting opportunity. I’d be much more sanguine about the US trying to “export democracy” to haiti that I was about doing the same to the middle-east. I reckon it’s worth the money just to see if it can be done. The great thing about haiti (and I say that with some measure of irony) is that it really can’t end up any worse than it was.
But something has to be done about voodoo. Send in some catholic priests and convert everyone back to the roman faith – it’s a rare exception, but I would wholeheartedly support that. There’s something seriously wrong with haiti’s culture of violence, and I can’t help but wonder if that’s it.
“Send in some catholic priests and convert everyone back to the roman faith –”
Why convert people back to what they all ready are? 80% of Haiti is catholic.
But something has to be done about voodoo. Send in some catholic priests and convert everyone back to the roman faith – it’s a rare exception, but I would wholeheartedly support that. There’s something seriously wrong with haiti’s culture of violence, and I can’t help but wonder if that’s it.
I think you missed the thrust of David’s essay.
secondly …the voodoo ?? WTF …their violence would not be different with catholics (..they are mostly catholics anyway)
they are violent because they can be. it is tribal and brutal. it works for them and no one stops them. without law and enforcement how long before we are like them ?
Haiti is screwed up and I don’t see it changing under the UN. the USA will not get involved outside the UN. if they really want help from the USA they need to go to war against it, works for all the other sh!tholes.
I don’t mean to disparage the good people in Haiti and the USA. the majority are most likely good people.
18. Matthew:
But something has to be done about voodoo. Send in some catholic priests and convert everyone back to the roman faith – it’s a rare exception, but I would wholeheartedly support that. There’s something seriously wrong with haiti’s culture of violence, and I can’t help but wonder if that’s it.
I think you missed the thrust of David’s essay.
secondly …the voodoo ?? WTF …their violence would not be different with catholics (..they are mostly catholics anyway)
they are violent because they can be. it is tribal and brutal. it works for them and no one stops them. without law and enforcement how long before we are like them ?
Haiti is screwed up and I don’t see it changing under the UN. the USA will not get involved outside the UN. if they really want help from the USA they need to go to war against it, works for all the other sh!tholes.
I don’t mean to disparage the good people in Haiti and the USA. the majority are most likely good people.
We have heard the same message from Africa repeatedly – no more aid! If we really wanted to help, we would sign free-trade agreements with all the poor nations of the world.
No more money from taxpayers to ingrates either here or elsewhere! We are now a bankrupt nation thanks to Oblameitonbush and his ilk.
Pay down the debt,cut taxes and regulation on business then quit passing more laws that cost more money. Cut the size of government by eliminating needless departments and employees. Any department with “nonessential” employees should rid them selves of such employees if they are not essential then why are they there to begin with?
Yes, lets start with Israel, the largest recipient of US aid, who never do what we want them to do with it. That three billion dollars can easily help Americans. Or is that country for some reason off limits in this forum?
Our government is running a deficit which means we are borrowing money to send to other countries. Not a good plan. Ditto military bases in countries that can and should defend themselves.
Excellent article, but it will fall on deaf ears in Obamaland.
Btw, Serbia should never have been bombed. Americans think that if they help the Muslims they will be grateful, but it’s exactly the opposite.
The same with Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not allied countries now, they hate the USA still, and always will.
You can’t buy friendship.
And foreign aid in many cases worsens the problems. What has it done for Africa?
But the main problem is, there is no more money for these things now, everyone is bankrupt.
#24 Original Child Bomb.
As soon as I saw the title of this article, I knew some jerk would bring up US aid to Israel. Aside from the fact that most of the military aid given to Israel is spent in the US & provides employment to American workers, much of this aid is also spent on joint research projects that benefit both countries. Nonetheless, I am one Israeli who would like to see an end to American aid provided America removes itself from the phoney peace process & stops all aid to other countries in the Middle-East. And, by the way, stops interfering in our arms sales to other countries because they compete with American companies.
Of course, you don’t complain at all about the aid given to Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, & many others, all in reality, enemies of the US (unlike Israel where we actually like the US) as well as the Palestinians who in their vast majority, hate you & have a favourable view of Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda & who danced in the streets after 9/11.
You need to be a bit more realistic about why America bombed Serbia. The war in Bosnia was long over. In Kosovo, Albanian terrorist KLA separatist murders were the only show in town a fact recognised even by the State Dept. a year before the bombing.
Then America decided to back those terrorists with an aerial terror if its own. A couple of CIA/KLA-staged massacres later, and the US’s bombing plan was on. Soon, the US had got what it wanted: the chance to create a new military capital of the Balkans: Camp Bondsteel – guaranteeing the US’s military presence in Europe in perpetuity, a kind of reverse colonialism requiring no Europan permission of any kind. And the ability to attack other sovereign states without recourse to the UN or its Security Council. (With appeasing allies trailing along as Serbia’s future was destroyed by the US support for Greater Albanian secessionism.)
So given that the US administration had demonised then bombed Serbia as a strategic move in their quest to remain the dominant world power, and then used this new found power to attack Iraq, the Muslims have no reason to be grateful to the US. Serbian land sacrificed by the US to the Islamic faith as a sop for being so beastly to the Muslims elsewhere won’t wash. And I don’t think Serbians will ever forget what you’re like, either.
Dear #24
It really is important to get one’s facts straight. To begin with, American aid to Israel is closer to $2 billion, about on par with Egypt’s. But the similarities stop there. Between America and Israel there exists a two-way street. Much of this “aid” finds its way back to the U.S. in defense purchases and contracts(cf. Lockheed), thus helping to stimulate the American defense industry. No less significant, state-of-the-art Israeli innovations in military technology are embraced by the U.S. arsenal. Such reciprocity is absolutely unique among recipients of American largesse, so one can legitimately argue that in this case American aid results in mutual benefit. Egypt, for example, returns little or nothing to the U.S. and the same applies to every other recipient nation–with the exception of Israel. By helping Israel, America also invests in itself, an arrangement well understood by American politicians and implicit in this particular aid structure.
I, for one, am sick of the world urinating on our heads and calling it rain.
In an arguement with some people from Germany, they criticized how dirty and inefficient our rail system was compared to that of Europe. They said it was typical of American attitudes.
I reminded them that after WW II, there was a large movement to turn ALL of Germany into an agraian country with no technology higher than a farm tractor. I also reminded them that the reason their transportation system was so new was that it was built from scratch by AMERICANS, after their system was destroyed by bombing due to a war started by their leaders.
Needless to say, I was ostracized from polite conversation after that inconvenient truth.
The rest of the world needs a reality enema.
Next time there is a disaster in Iran (remember the earthquakes?) or any Muslim country, lets see THEIR generosity. I don’t remember a lot of help from the Mideast going to the (mostly) Muslim countries affected by the tsunami a few years ago.
As for the “Palastinians”, where is the real practical help fro their fellow muslims? Why don’t THEY provide a homeland and assistance?
Sorry for the rant, but as an American, I’m more than a little tired of the rest of the world slapping me with one hand while holding out the other for aid.
America has constantly been taken advantage of by the rest of the world and the only people who have suffered because of that has been fellow Americans. Think about it. Think of all the money that could have been used for poor families right here in the United States if you combine all of the money that was donated by Americans for tsunami relief in Indonesia and Asia, earthquake relief in Haiti, and AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa. That would translate into billions, yes billions, of dollars that could have been used to help Americans that desperately need our aid. Instead, we give the money to a bunch of ungrateful Third World nations that are constantly moaning that we’re not doing “enough” to assist them.
America has now become the piggy bank for every natural and man-made disaster to afflict this planet and if we don’t fork over the cash we’re branded as greedy, insensitive, pigs. Did anyone stop to think about what the world did BEFORE America became the world’s wet nurse? Natural disasters have occurred for centuries around this planet and people have died, yes died, because of these events. Only recently, perhaps in the last 100 years, has America had the money and the means with which to provide aid to less fortunate countries. We never make a big deal about it and, as is painfully obvious, we never get much thanks for it. We did it because we thought it was the right thing to do.
But now this charity is EXPECTED from us, even though these billions of dollars could easily be used to help the less fortunate in our own country. Liberals will have you believe that we need to do both, help the needy in this country as well as provide vast sums of cash to the rest of the world. Sure, it’s easy for liberals to say that, especially when it’s NOT their money that’s at stake. Liberals are always generous with other people’s money. I’m sure if they really believed that, then liberals wouldn’t mind having to pay a special tax directed only at them that would be used to provide economic relief to some Third World nation who’s population basically hates us. If the liberals and the do-gooders really want to help those people, let them do it on their own dime, and not make the rest of the nation pay for it.
What is particularly loathsome is the ingratitude displayed by the nations we assist. The best examples are the Muslim countries (such as Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan) and countries where there are large Muslim populations (such as Bosnia or Kosovo). American blood and treasure has been spent in all of these countries and yet the populations there are still basically anti-American. There is absolutely no reason for any long-term US military commitment to any Muslim nation. Their religion, culture, and mentality prevents them from ever having a conventional alliance with a non-Muslim nation, so it’s a waste of time to think that if we spend enough blood and teasure in places like Iraq or Afghanistan that we’ll be able to turn those countries into a replica of Iowa or Indiana. Muslim nations have always hated Western nations, they consider non-Muslims infidels, and they certainly will never embrace Western culture or values. Bank on it. Once we leave Iraq, that sad and pathetic nation will fall right back into its normal tribal warfare until another dictator takes over and maintains order in that country. Politics in the Muslim world is based on power, and the person or the tribe that holds the most power will be in charge of that country. This simple fact has been true for centuries and it’s not about to change now.
Perhaps the answer to providing some economic assistance (notice I said “some,” not mandatory) to poorer nations could be achieved by getting RID of the United Nations. The United Nations has achieved little in the years since it has been created except to serve as an association and megaphone for every dictator, communist, or anti-semite the world has to offer. Do away with the United Nations and give the money you would save to orgainizations that actually help the poor, such as the International Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders. The billions of dollars that are wasted each year funding the United Nations would provide an enormous amount of aid to countries that need it. And if the poorer countries still hate us after receiving this aid, then we will have the option of not giving any more assistance to that country. Those poorer nations can then try to see if they can get a better deal from some other rich nation (like the French). Charity begins at home and we should be helping Americans first, rather than a bunch of people in Third-World nations that don’t appreciate our help.
Original Child Bomb (#24) writes, “Yes, lets start with Israel, the largest recipient of US aid, who never do what we want them to do with it. That three billion dollars can easily help Americans. Or is that country for some reason off limits in this forum?”
There’s not much I can add to the responses by Terry in Eilat and David Solway. I do find it remarkable that the “hate Israel” crowd that reflexively jumps on that aid almost never mentions the parallel aid to the PA, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt which, together, significantly exceed that given to Israel. Yet there’s little return from *that* investment. Unlike Israel, *they* more often than not vote against the US in international forums like the UN, and return almost nothing of value to the US. Israel’s military and medical technology are saving the lives of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. And do they not recognize how much the US benefited by Israel taking out the nuclear facilities of Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007)?
Yes, the gravy train should be cut off for Israel as well as every other country or foreign people that get our tax dollars.
American tax dollars should be spent on Americans. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires us to be the global ATM.
If you feel bad for the world’s poor, please reach into your own pocket and donate your own money to one of the many organizations that aid them.
As a side note, let us acknowledge an inconvenient truth – that many countries are poor and backwards because of cultural attitudes. And no amount of money will fix that.
It’s one of the great ironies of history that most foreign aid has gone to line the pockets of tyrants, or to buttress tyrannical regimes. But that’s only half the equation. The other half is that even when it reaches the intended beneficiary, help can cripple or kill him.
Charity in the form of money, in particular, is almost always ill-advised. He who genuinely needs help to survive needs food, clothing, shelter, and heat. Such gifts are far less susceptible to the unintended consequences of dependency and ingratitude. Nevertheless, it’s the giver’s responsibility to guarantee the responsible use of his gifts. Else he risks creating a leech, whom he or others will have to support indefinitely.
Wise giving has always been hard. One of America’s historically iconic philanthropists, Andrew Carnegie, said that “He who would administer wisely must perforce be wise, for one of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race has been indiscriminate charity.”
Food for thought.
#33 toady – “cultural attitudes. No amount of money will fix that.”
The comedian, Ron White, said it better. “You can’t fix stupid.”
America has been blessed by God with a truly unique history and culture. We are a nation of laws. We enjoy tremendous freedoms. We have met and overcome daunting obstacles. We fought, bled and died to get here. We struggled, suffered deprivation and overcame many setbacks. We’ve reached the point in our history where we are able to look upon the world and have pity for those not so fortunate as us.
So, we try to give them what we already enjoy. We have tried to export our system of laws, limited government, freedom, prosperity and highly educated citizens. We’ve tried to give to others the benefits of our culture. We’ve offered a helping hand to the whole world. But it didn’t work! The money we gave was stolen. The example we set was ignored. Our goodwill was trampled and spat upon. The objects of our largess did not work for it. They didn’t strive for the ideal, suffer and die for it. They turned the fruits of our great culture into a crass handout!
We made a mistake. You cannot GIVE freedom, prosperity and democracy to those who have not fought for it. They have to suffer for it themselves! THEY have to fight and die! Only then do THEY value the rule of law, freedom and equal opportunity above all things! We cannot infuse those who have always known only poverty and violence with any innate sense of optimism and justice. All our largess has been in vain. We would be much better served to remain insular and aloof, participating in international trade, but avoiding any entanglements (financial, military or political) that could cause us to become embroiled in conflicts abroad.
It’s harsh, cruel even, but it seems the best we can offer the world is our example and let them continue in their squalor and ignorance until they eventually figure it out and build their own uniquely free and open cultures by following our example.
We offered the world friendship, and the world spat upon us, ridiculed us, insulted us and accused us of all manner of most vile deeds and motivations.
It is time to stop trying to be friendly and become the headmaster of the world school of freedom and prosperity. The lessons are grueling, the demands stringent. The consequences of failure are harsh and unforgiving. But for those nations that “get it” and overcome their baser instincts to join us on the podium, the rewards are limitless! There’s no second place when it comes to freedom, liberty, prosperity and democracy. There’s America (and a notably FEW others), and there’s the failures. And yes, that includes the supposedly democratic but actually socialist Europe!
Bubblehead: but it seems the best we can offer the world is our example
This bears repeating.
27. Terry, Eilat – Israel: “I am one Israeli who would like to see an end to American aid provided America removes itself from the phoney peace process & stops all aid to other countries in the Middle-East.”
Good thinking, Terry. American aid helps prop up the Mubarak government, the only thing standing between Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood — just what Israel needs when everything is so “calm” on all fronts.
Josephy;
The Mubarak government puts its secular opponents in jail. It also subsidizes newspapers and other media that are viciously anti-American. The leader of the 9-11 hijackers was an Egyptian. Mubarak uses the Muslim Brotherhood as an excuse to justify his position. Do you still think aid to Egypt is a good investment of our tax dollars?
The US has been trying to sort out the Israeli-Palestinians conflict for years. One side won’t take down its land-hogging settlements. The other side is made up of corrupt and self-destructive losers. It’s time we admitted we cannot solve this thing and let them figure it out themselves.
#38 Joseph. Great shallow thinking there. Egypt is an enemy state despite our BS peace treaty. All American aid did was allow Egypt to modernize & augment it’s military, making them an even greater threat. We gave them the Sinai & sacrificed a great strategic position (& lost oil resources). Now do you think that American aid will make Mr Mubarak immortal? I think not.
Despite American aid, Mr Mubarak will probably die (& soon) unless there is a secret about American aid I don’t know about. No amount of American aid will be able to prop up any future regime – nor can American aid transform Egypt or any other Arab country into a moderate, peaceful, democratic state.
In all probability, the future dictator of Egypt will be less secure against the rising power of Islamists, even more likely, any future dictator will adopt Islamist positions to strengthen his hold on power.
Who would consider it “cruel, heartless, cynical and isolationist”? Even the Europeans who are so dismissive of Americans’successes in “policing” the world are terrified of American Isolationism. They know it would mean their having to pay themselves for their continued freedom and affluence, which would cut severely their cradle to grave social care so vaunted as so more humane and superior to those monstrous and selfish Americans. They’re like adolescents who berate momma USA (siempre la mama) if she requires anything from them, even just a little respect. “We didn’t ask you to do all these things” Try withdrawing from NATO and see what reaction you get. Cruel, cynical, heartless and isolationist.