Social Conservatives, Liberals Get Each Other Wrong on Welfare
Social conservatives argue that this is a Christian nation and that it is both appropriate and reasonable for the Christian majority to make laws that reflect its moral code. As social conservatives became more successful in gaining office and influence a few years back, liberals began to argue that if this was a Christian nation, didn’t Jesus call us to help the downtrodden and suffering?
Who’s right? They both are, but it seems that many liberals and social conservatives are missing some important history. They are also misunderstanding who stands for what.
Government assistance to the poor isn’t new; FDR didn’t invent the welfare state. Our tradition of local government providing for the poor traces back to the Poor Law passed in 1601, during the reign of Elizabeth I. This law became necessary because Elizabeth’s divorce-happy father dissolved the great monasteries that had cared for those who would otherwise have starved. The American colonies carried over this practice, with each town responsible for looking after its poor and mentally ill.
William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, the most popular law book in the American colonies when the Revolution started, listed the rights that every Englishman enjoyed because they were a gift from God — including the right to life. And this even applied to “an infant, even before his birth.” This included not simply protection from criminal attack, but also:
The law … furnishes him with every thing necessary for their support. For there is no man so indigent or wretched, but he may demand a supply sufficient for all the necessities of life, from the more opulent part of the community, by means of the several statutes enacted for the relief of the poor.
The government’s obligation to care for the poor isn’t a modern innovation (unless you think of ruffed collars as dangerous liberalism).
Where liberals get it wrong is to assume that all opposition to the welfare state is opposition in principle. Yes, there are libertarians who believe that the government should provide no assistance to the poor — that this is properly the function of private charity. (Private charity to help the poor is an enviable goal, but as David Steinberg points out, the left is generally less prepared to make charitable contributions than the right.) But much of the conservative position is not opposition to the principle of governmental assistance, but to particular bad implementations.
The government has no obligation beyond protecting the public. Caring for the poor is a societal matter, a moral obligation of the public. Referring to a law from Britain 200 years in the past, and the actions of progressive politicians as some sort of proof that it is the responsibility of the government is extremely flawed. The majority of conservatives don’t mind helping those that wish to help themselves, but this attitude that we cannot allow anyone to fail, while noble in its intent, is going to destroy us. Failure is the greatest motivation for success.
“there are libertarians who believe that the government should provide no assistance to the poor”
While I am somewhat of a libertarian, I am really a Federalist. Therefore, I strongly believe that the Federal government should have absolutely no role in our day-to-day lives. Your single mom in PA is a great example – states or towns should deal with the poor in conjunction with private charities. The Feds should worry about national defense and stay out of our lives.
“Where liberals get it wrong is to assume that all opposition to the welfare state is opposition in principle.”
Liberals assume no such thing. Liberals assume that such opposition arises from an unwillingness to part with money.
Heaven forbid we want people that can afford a flat screen TV, a cell phone, a computer, internet, cable, and other “nice to have’s, but not really necessary to LIVE” begin footing the bill for the food that goes in their mouth. I have to pay for all these “extras” and guess what? If I can’t afford to pay for all of those things and food for my mouth and roof over my head I start finding out what it is that I can live without.
biblio: Okay genius, what has welfare done for poor blacks and whites over the past 60 years? Has poverty declined? Has giving the poor more aid helped them improve their lives? Or has it permanently created a welfare class which is dependent upon the government for its welfare, which means Dems and therefore votes for Dems?
Yes, I object to parting with my hard earned money but the IRS says I must. So your argument is false.
If the “majority” were actually taxed to help the poor then there would be some natural restraints on the profligate spending and pandering of politicians. But only a small disfavored minority bear the brunt of the tax burden. The “rich.” So we have no meaningful checks on profligate spending and pandering anymore.
Moreover, if forced confiscation for the benefit of the poor were still a local issue, there would also be natural restraints. The “rich” could simply move to a town where they won’t be turned into slaves required to carry every indigent person who lives, or relocates to the where the Conservatives and Liberals live in large numbers and quibble over how best to redistribute other people’s money. But the federal government under FDR succeeded in casting aside that pesky constituion with its limited and enumerqated powers for the feds. So, again, we have no meaningful checks on profligate spending and pandering anymore.
“But the federal government under FDR succeeded in casting aside that pesky constituion with its limited and enumerqated powers for the feds.”
Actually, the New Deal’s expansion of the welfare state still left much of the decision making at the state level. Hence, the enormous disparity between states in GA and AFDC levels. The courts actually play a bigger part in this: expanding AFDC in the 1930s to include unwed mothers (to the horror of Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, who came up with the AFDC program); striking down state residency for welfare laws in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969).
The question for society is not how do we take care of our poor, but rather how do we effectively teach our poor to care for themselves. Poverty is not eliminated simply by feeding the hungry. The goal is to help needy people become self-reliant and productive members of society.
My experience in assisting people via my church convinces me there is no panacea (government or private) that will reliably lift people out of poverty in all cases. Assistance programs do help many people going through temporary hard times, and in some cases they do help people change their lives. But in other cases welfare programs merely reinforce long-term dependency. Some people become addicted to assistance and consume enormous resources needed by others.
Individual attitudes regarding work, education, responsibility, deferral of gratification, etc. make all the difference for recipients. Private charities can help people change by expressing compassion and making assistance dependent on doing things that can help lift people out of poverty in the long run. But I don’t see how government programs — where people receive benefits as a matter of right versus compassion — has any lever to motivate people to make life-style changes as needed.
A monarch did smite the monasteries providing for the poor and so caused government aid to the poor. Doesn’t that support the libertarian position?
“The majority of conservatives don’t mind helping those that wish to help themselves, but this attitude that we cannot allow anyone to fail, while noble in its intent, is going to destroy us. Failure is the greatest motivation for success.”
The problem is that sometimes, failing to help someone in need guarantees failure. One example is children growing up in poverty. Yes, it can be highly motivating to get out. But sometimes it just seems hopeless.
Obviously, there are people who persist in self-destructive behavior, no matter how much help you give them. There’s not much you can do for people in that situation.
“The goal is to help needy people become self-reliant and productive members of society.”
Hence, the emphasis on training in the 1995 reforms.
“But I don’t see how government programs — where people receive benefits as a matter of right versus compassion — has any lever to motivate people to make life-style changes as needed.”
This is an area where government assistance used to have a strong moral component to it–and that rather went by the wayside in the 1960s, because it was no judgmental.
“A monarch did smite the monasteries providing for the poor and so caused government aid to the poor. Doesn’t that support the libertarian position?”
It does, actually. Except that a few other things have changed since Henry VIII as well. My experience is that in small towns, it is astonishing how well private charity works to help those in need. In big cities, not so well, where anonymity plays a bigger role.
Mr Cramer. Thank you for your fine article. I’m not very familiar with welfare law or its history. What was this “strong moral component” that used to be part of government assistance?
Mr Cramer. Thank you for your fine article. I’m not very familiar with welfare law or its history. What was this “strong moral component” that used to be part of government assistance?
I don’t think we can avoid being “judgmental” when it comes to solving difficult problems. (Doctors and lawyers, for example, are paid to make judgments about complex situations.) I’ve wondered if government could organize local Boards or Councils to dispense welfare resources, similar to the way some churches dispense resources to the needy. But the idea may be too vulnerable to cronyism and corruption.
“Liberals assume no such thing. Liberals assume that such opposition arises from an unwillingness to part with money.”
This would be a more persuasive argument if liberals contributed heavily to charitable causes, while conservatives did not. But it is more the other way around. And the actual costs of the welfare state aren’t really all that high; it’s the destructive effects of the welfare state as it operated in much of my lifetime that was the issue.
I think much of the confusion would evaporate if people stopped believing that “welfare programs” are the same as “caring for the poor”.
Many of the people on welfare have cable services, cars and electronic equipment that I cannot afford and since I am stupid enough to believe that I need to live within my means, I do without those items.
Common sense conservatives have always cared for the poor. We do not assume that “caring for the poor” includes top of the line computers, IPods and cable TV.
We certainly don’t assume that government programs intended to give everybody the same possessions, whether or not they are employed, are useful in any society.
“What was this “strong moral component” that used to be part of government assistance?”
Until the 1930s, there was a clear distinction between the able-bodied who could not find work, those who were lazy, and those who could not work. Those who could work, but did not, didn’t get anything. There was also an assumption that an able-bodied man who couldn’t find work was probably not trying very hard. The Depression changed that assumption, because you could go anywhere in the country, and not find a job.
As I mentioned above in another comment, AFDC, when created by Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, was for women with small children whose husbands had died, abandoned them, or something similar. The federal courts decided that discriminating against women who didn’t bother to get married before having kids was unlawful–and Perkins was not happy about this. Into the 1950s, many states had rules that prohibited AFDC payments to women who had an able-bodied man living with them, on the theory that such a man should be caring for his own children. For a variety of reasons, some good, some bad, many states abandoned this rule (and I think the federal government may have eventually removed it everywhere).
Until the 1930s, in both America and in Britain, governmental assistance was often provided through the poorhouse or workhouse, which provided a place to live, and food. It wasn’t particularly a pleasant place to live–and in Britain, often quite severe–because the goal was twofold:
1. Discourage laziness.
2. Make sure that those who had some other option available to them would take it, leaving the resources for those truly in need.
Jesus, the Master Christian, commanded us to help the poor, but ^nowhere^ did he ever stipulate that it was to be accomplished through coercive collective (government) action.
“Liberals began to argue that if this was a Christian nation, didn’t Jesus call us to help the downtrodden and suffering,” but liberals assume, because it’s an integral part of their mental makeup, that the coercive collectivist approach is the only approach — and any Christian who does not sign on to coercing others (to act Christian?!?) is branded a hypocrite. Wow; where’s separation of church and state when we really need it??
Mr. Cramer, I wish you’d included this angle in your fine piece.
“I don’t think we can avoid being “judgmental” when it comes to solving difficult problems. (Doctors and lawyers, for example, are paid to make judgments about complex situations.)”
Agreed. But this is an unfortunate consequence of lawyers getting involved: the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment has become a marvelous opportunity to discourage moral judgments.
“We certainly don’t assume that government programs intended to give everybody the same possessions, whether or not they are employed, are useful in any society.”
This is where the Great Society started to go astray. There are certainly plenty of poor people who are NOT living that well–not even close. But there was an assumption in the 1960s in some circles that no one should be deprived of the good life simply because they were poor. I can remember reading the remarks of a Los Angeles City Councilman in the 1980s to the effect that cable TV rates needed to be regulated low enough to guarantee that even poor people had access to it, because cable TV was a human right.
“[L]iberals assume, because it’s an integral part of their mental makeup, that the coercive collectivist approach is the only approach — and any Christian who does not sign on to coercing others (to act Christian?!?) is branded a hypocrite. Wow; where’s separation of church and state when we really need it??”
This was somewhat implied; those who argue against imposing Christian morality with respect to sex, or pornography, or substance abuse, are quite prepared to impose Christian morality with respect to alleviating suffering caused by poverty. And while it is true that much of what is called “poverty” in America today would have been considered comfort a century ago–and incomprehensible luxury throughout human history–there are a lot of poor people out there who aren’t getting the basics of medical care and sufficient food (although the latter often has more to do with bad parents).
You may find this paper by me about Victorian workhouses and the ideological struggle over poverty of interest. There are many interesting parallels to the struggles over welfare reform that were going on at the same time in the mid-1990s.
Most poverty in the US – most – is related to poor choices – i.e. no education, illegitimacy, addiction, etc …
Here’s a though provoking article on poverty and socialism in Britain.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_oh_to_be.html
Here’s another link on poverty in the US:
ca
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
Quote: “Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty”
16, actually, I think his statement was correct regarding the liberal assumption. I think he revealed more than he intended to.
More basically than that, I think it’s a pointless argument if we can’t even define the poor. And the poverty level is a useless metric, because it’s a self-fulfilling prophesy; if you define the bottom x percent as poor, you’re always going to have x% in poverty no matter what.
This is the sister issue to the question of how much is enough.
Great topic Mr. Cramer- and one that will continue to vex us all. I’m betting you’ve read at least some of Charles Murray’s work on the state of federal aid programs of all kinds.
To extend your argument a bit further, the issue I believe is not limited to fixing traditional, “great society” welfare, but the best way to reduce the number of people dependent on Federal government assistance of all kinds. Since the 1960′s we’ve had the often well-intentioned heavy hand of government and politics actually enlarge and perpetuate the very problems it tried to address. We did it with the educational system. We did it with social programs to address crime, drug dependency and “affordable” housing. The commom links in all these problems and the programs designed to fix them is that firstly, individual accountability and “moral hazard” were removed from the equation because clearly some felt that such concepts reeked of being too judgemental. Second, we administered the programs from a bureaucracy that became more and more detached from and disinterested in the people needing help. Finally, to clumsily paraphrase Milton Friedman, we paid for these programs in the most ineffective and waste-producing manner: using other people’s money to spend money on other people.
If we don’t change those three conditions we don’t have much of a chance at meaningful reform.
“Second, we administered the programs from a bureaucracy that became more and more detached from and disinterested in the people needing help.”
Yup. My sister spent a year working for Los Angeles County, in their elderly assistance program, right after she graduated from UCLA. Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, they were supposed to go out and actually visit the elderly they were assisting. But she soon found out that her fellow social workers would go to beach on Tuesday afternoons, or go shopping. She knew, because they were asking her to come along–and it wasn’t any big secret.
28, there’s another aspect to that, too. In many agencies, there’s a tendency to give preference to squeaky wheels (I can’t name names, but this comes from inside of a housing agency). Especially if the squeaky wheel can play the race card. This tendency to give assistance to non-needy squeaky wheels displaces the quieter needy. This goes on routinely. And the agencies will choose to violate HUD rules rather than risk getting hauled in front of a “human rights council”.
It doesn’t take long for the workers to burn out, tune out, and lose any concept of helping the needy. It quickly becomes just a job with some pretty bizarre rules.
“In many agencies, there’s a tendency to give preference to squeaky wheels (I can’t name names, but this comes from inside of a housing agency).”
Tom Wolfe’s Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers really captures the methods by intimidation works.
“Most poverty in the US – most – is related to poor choices – i.e. no education, illegitimacy, addiction, etc …”
There are incredibly destructive patterns out there–but sometimes, you look at the situations people in these patterns came out of, and it would be amazing if they did NOT follow the patterns in which they were raised.
A relative is a social worker in a mental hospital. She sees some horrendous situations: girls (sometimes boys) as young as 13 who have made suicide attempts because their parents are pimping them out to get money to buy meth. You think that kid is going to be following a healthy, sensible strategy as an adult? A few do. But those are the amazing examples.
Great discussion! I found your Victorian workhouse paper interesting. On the basis of what I’ve learned today I’ve concluded: As long as welfare (food, housing, whatever) is seen as a constitutional right, we are guaranteed to have a large number of helpless, welfare-addicted people. This is because government must dispense welfare in a non-judgmental way, and some people will find it easier to live on the dole than to change to a self-reliant lifestyle. Government programs, intended to stamp out poverty, are actually feeding the flames.
“As long as welfare (food, housing, whatever) is seen as a constitutional right, we are guaranteed to have a large number of helpless, welfare-addicted people. This is because government must dispense welfare in a non-judgmental way, and some people will find it easier to live on the dole than to change to a self-reliant lifestyle. Government programs, intended to stamp out poverty, are actually feeding the flames.”
Government can dispense welfare in a judgmental way–for example, convicted drug felons get kicked out of government housing projects–but it takes extraordinary circumstances to persuade the courts that this is legally allowed without violating due process and equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. This can be fixed (although it requires an unlimited season on lawyers, with no bag limits, I suspect).
The 1995 reforms actually made a real difference on this, substantially assisting in reducing welfare caseloads. The rising economy helped a lot, too.
I think you mean community organizers? This kind of “civil rights” work isn’t particularly lucrative. It’s the narcissistic “change the world” do-gooders who cause this kind of injustice. Most lawyers have better things to do.
“Most lawyers have better things to do.”
Most lawyers may, but the damage has been done by lawyers.
“This kind of “civil rights” work isn’t particularly lucrative.”
No, it really is, especially since so many of them work for Legal Services or some state government equivalent.
I have lived in the inner-city for more than 20 years. What I have seen and the conditions that exist around me prove that bad implementation is hardly the problem. It is a second plantation system from which an ABC of state and federal programs profit. The last thing that social service agencies want is for you not to need them. I have had ACORN and other “helpers” at my door so often, I can hardly keep track – trying to convince me to take benefits for which they say I qualify. It took me twenty minutes to explain to one ACORN worker that I owned my house and therefore had no issues with a bad landlord. She simply couldn’t accept that I had bought my house with my own money and a regular mortgage. You can’t imagine how angry it makes them to hear that my family is not interested.
To tag some of the thoughts developed by Calvin Bell in the comments above…there was one conversation I tried to have with our former daughter-in-law about “poverty” vs. “lack of money”:
She grew up in a household with plenty of cash flow but with a victim mindset. I never succeeded in my efforts to persuade her that “accepting poverty” (which is a mindset) is completely unnecessary, even if you don’t have any money.
I have had many times in my life where I had almost nothing and was down to my last nickel, literally. I will also guarantee you that I HAVE NEVER BEEN POOR OR FELT POOR A SINGLE DAY IN MY LIFE.
“Having little money” or “low income” and being “a poor person” have got to be separated as issues. We can have a very good life with very little money.
Those who want to spent their lives as victims, unfortunately, are endlessly encouraged in that by the bureaucrats and ACORNsters who make their living and get their kicks by feeding on the carcasses of other people’s lives.
I couldn’t agree more. As a free market conservative and a Catholic, I have often struggled with my responsibilities to the poor. In addition, it hasn’t helped that have hve been made to feel guilty by my church because I opposed government programs that do nothing but trap the poor in a cycle of government dependancy. Some of the programs we have are crazy. There must be a means tested graduated system that helps provide a hand up when needed, but does not punish and individual or famaily as they move up the economic ladder. We should focus on trully helping people grow out of poverty.
37. Meryl, ever heard of Rabbi Daniel Lappin? That’s one of his points; that poverty doesn’t cause dysfunction but dysfunction causes poverty. Even in the minority of cases where circumstances get people down, mental and moral orientation makes the difference between bouncing back and submission. And in this case, submission is not a good thing.
“I have had many times in my life where I had almost nothing and was down to my last nickel, literally. I will also guarantee you that I HAVE NEVER BEEN POOR OR FELT POOR A SINGLE DAY IN MY LIFE.”
When it came time to apply to colleges, I was startled to find out that my family was below the poverty line. Poverty is sometimes a matter of money, but usually, it is a matter of values–and those are hard to fix in highly dysfunctional families and subcultures. It usually requires some cultural imperialism.
“That’s one of his points; that poverty doesn’t cause dysfunction but dysfunction causes poverty. Even in the minority of cases where circumstances get people down, mental and moral orientation makes the difference between bouncing back and submission.”
I will agree that dysfunction causes poverty far more often than the other way around. Breaking the cycle of poverty requires breaking the pattern of dysfunction.
My sister-in-law lived in Sacramento. She had a neighbor whose husband was a professional criminal–meaning that he had never held a job in his life. He had been in and out of prison repeatedly for robbery, drug trafficking, and similar crimes. He beat his wife up pretty regularly, and they had drunken fights all the time. So why did she stay? Because she grew up in a dirt floor shack in North Carolina where her father beat up her mother regularly. She had wall-to-wall carpeting! What was so bad about this?
Another person I knew called Child Protective Services when she was 15, because her father had been repeatedly forcing her to have sex since she turned 13. Mom didn’t understand what she was so upset about–this is what her father did to her. That’s just the way families operate, right? (This being California, it wasn’t a serious crime. The father had to move out of the house for three years–no prison time.) This young lady moved out of the house as soon as she turned 18, and intended to break completely with the past.
I could give gobs more stories. Some people repeat bad patterns because they have no idea that they have a choice. Some break the pattern. Ending intergenerational poverty takes more than money; it takes a willingness to say, “This is a bad thing.” And this is where liberalism lost its way–an unwillingness to say something that judgmental.
I see the professional panhandlers on my way to work. Their signs claim they want to work, yet I see help wanted signs at businesses unfilled (for cashiers, oil change places etc) only yards from where they stand.
Masstexedous,
If you are homeless you can’t put an address on an application and this have trouble getting a job. Also, several of the people we see panhandling are mentally I’ll, this they are not operating with a full deck. Just a Hindu, some people may want a job but circumstance of some prevent it.
Good explanation of Liberal VOTER mindset.
The liberal politician’s mindset = I can buy lots of votes with other people’s taxdollars. And, while the giveaways are great, I’ll never rally try to fix the problems because then my voters would become taxpayers.
“I see the professional panhandlers on my way to work. Their signs claim they want to work, yet I see help wanted signs at businesses unfilled (for cashiers, oil change places etc) only yards from where they stand.”
There are certainly charlatans out there. Don’t confuse them with those who are poor. Some panhandlers actually make a decent living taking advantage of the good intentions of others. And yes, I agree with C above: a fair number are mentally ill.
I don’t buy the “I’m homeless, I can’t find a job explanation.” There are day labor operations in most cities that will be quite willing to accept John Doe, General Delivery at the nearest post office, as an address. Much of the homeless population is mentally ill–quite dramatically so as you move from the interior to the coasts.
My Dad was a fairly typical liberal lawyer who became a welfare appeals examiner in the 70′s. In an unguarded moment he once confessed to me that he had always discounted the fears of creating a dependent class as just so much conservative propaganda. His time hearing welfare appeals disabused him of that notion in a hurry. He said that his epiphany came during a heartbreaking moment in which the 17 year old daughter of an appelant said that she would soon be old enough to qualify for her own AFDC check. HELLO! Liberals are you listening? Years of watching her mom do nothing more taxing than venture to the mailbox had completely bred any ambitious impulses right out of her. He said it was not at all uncommon to encounter 3rd generation recipients. Since I’m not as smart as my dad was, I manage a large number of rental properties for out of state owners. We sometimes rent to people on various forms of government assistance. They are not unpleasant people, nor would I be … given the sweet deal that most of them exploit shamelessly. They are not disadvantaged in any way other than their unwillingness to be self supporting.
Good deads can only be done if they are free of coercion. Gov. by definition is incapable of doing a good dead. Beyond this, I agree entirely with #1. That way, I can leave a state that does a poor job with this wretched business.
Make that #2 comment, not that #1 is bad mind you.
He said that his epiphany came during a heartbreaking moment in which the 17 year old daughter of an appelant said that she would soon be old enough to qualify for her own AFDC check.
A neighbor of ours in San Jose worked for the county welfare department, and reported (this was in the 1980s) to us that third generation welfare recipients like this were quite common in her case load–and they didn’t need to wait for 18 to get pregnant, have kids, and collect AFDC. It provided a way for them to be “independent” (at least, independent of Mom). And there was no shortage of men quite willing to knock up 14, 15, and 16 girls and then move on.
Of course, this is one of the reasons that AFDC was scrapped and replaced with TANF in the mid-1990s–because it was so apparent that AFDC encouraged this sort of intergenerational dependency. My guess from what I have read is that this is far less common than it used to be, because TANF has some time limits and training requirements precisely to prevent that.