Kathryn, thanks for linking to Rubio’s excellent speech. I completely agree with both of the Rubio quotes you highlighted. The free-enterprise system has lifted more people out of poverty than any government program, and yes, our “social problems create our poverty.” But there’s a tension inherent in these two points. It’s not precisely true that the free-enterprise system itself has lifted people out of poverty; it’s more true that the free-enterprise system has created opportunities that allow hard-working (or even moderately hard-working) individuals to succeed. But if you destroy the people’s industry and virtue, then all the economic liberty in the world won’t save them.
It is simply a fact that our social problems are increasingly connected to the depravity of the poor. If an American works hard, completes their education, gets married, and stays married, then they will rarely — very rarely — be poor. At the same time, poverty is the handmaiden of illegitimacy, divorce, ignorance, and addiction. As we have poured money into welfare, we’ve done nothing to address the behaviors that lead to poverty while doing all we can to make that poverty more comfortable and sustainable.
Earlier this week, Walter Russell Mead highlighted disturbing research showing that the poor — far more than the rich — are disconnected from church and religion. While church attendance is dropping among all social classes, it’s falling off a cliff for the poorest and least-educated Americans. In other words, the deeper a person slides into poverty, the more they’re disconnected from the very values that can save them and their families.
The bottom line is that we need more free enterprise, and we need more virtue. Sadly, the Great Society and the sexual revolution have deprived us of both.
UPDATE: I’ve noticed that several more liberal blogs have linked to this post as evidence of, well, my depravity. Anyway, I’m glad to see a real discussion emerging. I amplified on these points in a later post. It begins:
Kathryn, thanks very much for your question. When I’ve written about poverty’s connection to depravity (see here and here, for example), I have not at all been arguing that depravity is a phenomenon unique to the poor. Indeed, as a Christian (of the Calvinist persuasion), I understand that no one is righteous. In fact, it’s not merely that we’re “not righteous” — it’s a fundamental tenet of orthodox Christianity that no single aspect of our lives is perfect. Put another way, “We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.”
Read the whole thing.
A few years ago I heard an author on NPR talking about his experience with a poor family in DC. He had great affection for them but made this observation:
"The lives of the underclass are chaotic."
He was not speaking about a chaos born of poverty but clearly a poverty (in behavior even more than material wealth) that came from their disordered lives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have lived in the hood for years. Based on this I have reached the conclusion that the so called poor in America lack for nothing materially. They are poor in spirit.
it is exactly right that all the great society programs have done is make bad choices affordable to those who make them. We, the taxpayers, fund the consequences of these choices made by the poor in spirit.
Further it is quite clear that, people being people, the administrative systems establish to handle these massive transfer programs are ripe for fraud and abuse. Getting on the dole, and staying there, requires that these so called poor people behave in a manner that the county social workers find acceptable. This has created some truly perverse incentives. Mr French points out that illegitimacy is the handmaiden of poverty, yet an illegitimate child is the key to the welfare kingdom.
Is it any wonder that marriage, deferring gratification and hard work are no longer valued? these don't pay anywhere near as well as getting something for nothing via the welfare system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would marriage be culturally valued in these areas, where single motherhood receives saluting worthy of a returning World War II hero?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"poor in spirit"? Interesting choice of words there, Curmudgeon. Aren't those the ones who the Jesus who is supposed to rescue these folks from their "moral depravity" called "blessed"? The irony is too much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are no "causes of poverty". Poverty is the natural state of man. There are only "causes of wealth".
This simple fact is the key to understanding what we choose to call "economics".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHead of nail, meet hammer.
I would try to add to these wonderful words, but any attempt on my part would only dilute them.
Jack, I bow to your greatness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is very true. Economic freedom is a requisite of prosperity but not in itself its cause. In El Salvador we implemented economic liberalism expecting a Chilean-type economic miracle but it has not come to pass. Leftists blamed "neoliberalism" itself, but the real culprit is our depraved society —high illegitimacy, rampant criminality and ignorance.
Of course, everything else being equal, economic freedom will lead to more prosperity than central planning, but it is a very important insight that it is probably easier for a quasi-totalitarian society with virtuous people to prosper, than it is for a free society with vicious people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid they implement the ideas of Hernando de Soto? Just curious.
I've got some Salvadoran friends who are horrified at the random and pervasive criminality in their homeland.
Mobs of young men roam the streets at all hours, taking whatever's not nailed down or protected by firepower. They'll gun down someone just for a wallet, and there's no recourse to the police, who are taking their cut of the loot.
You're right: If people are in the habit of being corrupt, they'll corrupt any system, regardless of its configuration.
My best to El Salvador; were it possible, I'd invite all the remaining decent ones to come on over.
Legally, of course. :-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe will have increasing levels of poverty of spirit and the poor as long as we make it comfortable ( and respectable ) for able bodied people to be on the dole.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat liberals call compassion is really an intentional blind eye to the causes of poverty. They ignore the culpability of the poor and point fingers at the social and political demons they can blame. And while relieving the poor of responsibility for their situtation, they demand that the demons provide whatever is needed to temporarily relieve the symptoms of poverty. Unfortunately, as with most complex problems, throwing money at poverty makes it less uncomfortable for awhile, but does not resolve it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna, you're saying that everyone in poverty is there by making a choice not to do anything about it? That if they'd only accept the blame, rely only on themselves and get to work their problems would be solved? Brilliant, just brilliant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin, Kevin, Kevin. I can always count on you to put words in my mouth. Where in my post did I say "everyone in poverty is there by making a choice not to do anything about it?" I was talking about what liberals do to try to "fix" poverty, not what poor people do. Thanks for playing!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBuilding strawmen is KM's only real talent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna, you said "They ignore the culpability of the poor". "Culpable" means responsibility/blame.
So, if you aren't saying the poor have themselves to blame for their situation, what did you intend the phrase to mean?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin: You aren't paying attention again. Did I say "everyone" who is poor is culpable? No. I said liberals ignore the culpability of the poor. In other words, they blame someone else for EVERYONE who's poor and ignore the fact that some folks are poor because of choices they made, not because of what someone else did or failed to do. Some people are poor through no fault of their own, but that doesn't apply to ALL poor people. Let's use our resources for the benefit of those people who have no other option, not people who choose the option of poverty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna,
You said "the culpability of the poor" rather than "the culpability of some of the poor." If you meant something different you should have written it differently.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe vast majority of people in poverty are there because of poor decisions that they made.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe vast majority of poor people are poor for the same reason that vast majority of rich* people are rich - they are born into it.
*I mean seriously rich, not earing $250K a year rich.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAssuming you are correct on the sources of poverty, what is to be done to address it? If the parents are "depraved" and have made poor choices, how do we keep the children from doing the same? If education budgets are cut, how can these children get a good education? If they do not have a good education, how can they get a good job to support their families. I'd like to see some concrete examples of what can be done to break the poverty cycle rather than the poor are depraved.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMoney doesn't provide students with a good education, educators do, and money doesn't make students learn, desire does. We can't force people to value something we believe is important, but they don't. Millions of Americans received good educations with far less resources than are available to schools and students today, so cutting education budgets isn't the primary reason poor children aren't well educated. If poor students won't stay in school, the size of the school's budget is moot.
But you do ask a legitimate question. What can be done to break the poverty cycle? Unfortunately, the answer isn't encouraging. It's impossible to help people who refuse to help themselves and are satisfied with with poverty for themselves and their children. We can encourage them to move in the right direction and provide them with the tools they need to do that, but the decision to move in that direction and use the tools we provide is ultimately theirs. The values and principles parents teach their children are the key to breaking the poverty cyle, not education budgets.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse