But, I have always maintained that the presence, the need, and the growth of such organizations actually reflects something more serious that I have always been worried about: The breakdown in the social contract. The big holes in the social safety net.
Consider, for instance, the homeless. Whatever be the circumstance, there is something seriously wrong when there are homeless people out on the streets and in makeshift cardboard tents. Especially on cold and wet winter days and nights. What happened to the social contract to take care of them?
Republicans decided a long time ago that this is not a collective problem that we need to address. To the typical Republican, protecting guns and protecting fertilized human eggs are the kinds of "collective" problems that taxes are for, and not to address real, in-your-face, human problems like homelessness.
Homelessness is not a blue-state problem nor a red-state problem. It is not a problem faced only by fair-weather cities. It is large-scale, with a whole range of reasons that are largely beyond the scope of any one local entity. But, the rabid Republicans even stopped talking about these problems. If they didn't recognize the problem, it does not exist, right? And they can then press on with real problems like Haitians working with ISIS to steal all the American jobs!
These collective issues are then left to the liberal wusses and the truly religious to take care of them. Our hearts bleed and we do our best to take care of them. But, the massive effort requires the machinery of the government, which is exactly what the damn Republicans do not want to fund:
The dystopian social safety net alleviates pain and suffering, so it is necessary in the short term. But the roots of the pain and suffering need to be addressed, and when there are shortcomings (as there will be), the government should be the safety net, not only civil society.A few months ago, I read about a group that was trying to help poor mothers post bail. It is not as if these mothers had assaulted or killed. Nope. It could even be simple scenarios like this: They have a broken brake light in their cars, which they have not fixed because of the precarious economic lives they lead. The police officer tickets them, especially if the women are non-white. These women don't have the money to pay the ticket because they are dealing with far more pressing issues. And soon, well, the government decides that non-payment is a felony and they are jailed.
I donated money to that group. That's what we bleeding-heart liberal wusses do. But, groups like that shouldn't even have to exist in the first place!
But these programs, though wonderful and needed, shouldn’t have to exist in the first place. Of course, they should be praised and supported. But they should also be understood for what they are: temporary palliatives that we should not accept as long-term solutions.Exactly. But, guess who has to figure out the long-term solutions?
Such is the state of affairs, which we don't typically see in Scandinavia, for instance. Why? Because, the nearly all-white GOP is worried that the beneficiaries will be non-white people.
Is it, therefore, any surprise that the rabid republicans voted for the openly racist white male? The surprise will be if he does not get re-elected!
2 comments:
This is not a right / left issue. Its one of compassion and human heart. I am economically a rightist and yet these days all I do is volunteer for social causes. The church is usually conservative and yet often does the most charity.
This is a complex issue on which there are no easy answers. We will never totally eliminate poverty (or in this example homelessness). All we can do is minimise it. Even in Norway, which seems to to be the flavour of the month, there are people sleeping rough.
There is a place for government with economic policy. Those that minimises absolute poverty (raise a cheer for China !). Reduce the chances that somebody will be completely destitute. Then there is a social policy where at least a minimum safety net must be the preserve of the government. Sure, there will not be agreement and everybody has wildly varying ideas on what it should be. But at least have a minimum net wherein nobody goes hungry or naked.
But there will be still be people who will be in trouble. That's where charities and social organisations step in. What's your objection to them ? No, they are not temporary palliative solutions - they are a permanent delivery mechanism of support from the community. Instead of forcing people to pay taxes and the government spending them, why not people willingly donate and charities implement. Promote a culture of giving, volunteering and helping. Social organisations do this well. Like SVPD (hurray for the friend).
There will always be a few people who misuse this support system. That's what gets the goat of strong Republicans. Where they have gone wrong is to say because a few misuse, every support should be stopped. That's why they appear heartless. The misuse cannnot be eliminated, but we can minimise and leave it at that.
"That's where charities and social organisations step in. What's your objection to them ?"
I have never objected to them.
Charities and social organizations can do only so much. They simply do not have the vast resources that governments have--in any country.
Governments also have the power to raise the money needed to take care of fellow humans. Voluntary donations cannot ever amount to that kind of resource generation. Further, we bring our biases into our charitable acts as well. The uber-wealthy donating to uber-wealthy colleges is a wonderful example here. This donation is not really "charity."
Republicans know really well that a few people will always misuse programs. But, if the only whites misused it, they won't have a problem. It is their worry that benefits go to people of color that drives their anti-safety-net ideology. It is why, for instance, they are a lot worried about the opioid crisis--this is a crisis that affects an overwhelmingly white population!
Post a Comment