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.”
I am arguing, however, that American poverty is quite closely linked to individual moral choices. In fact, those moral choices are far more important than any other factor in determining whether a person is — or will remain — poor. For example, we’ve long known that a vast gulf exists between single-parent poverty and marital poverty (36.5 percent of female-led single-parent families are poor compared with 6.4 percent of married two-parent families, according to this Heritage study), and we’re now learning that cohabitation is bad for kids as well. Cohabitation, divorce, and premarital sex are all choices (though I recognize it takes only one person to initiate a divorce), and when you throw in additional risk factors like addiction, criminality, or academic failure, you have a recipe for poverty.
As Walter Russell Mead notes, it’s not as if the rich or middle class are immune to these behaviors, but they do — at least for a time — have a greater ability to absorb the costs of their mistakes. Very few, however, have the resources to absorb multiple, persistent behavioral errors, and divorce, drug use, sloth, or any number of other sins do create downward mobility (it’s common to see divorced parents trade in one large house for two smaller houses and two struggling households). Not everyone can keep up with the Kardashians.
On a personal note, for more than a decade I worked closely with mentoring programs for at-risk youth. Any journey into poverty-stricken environments (whether urban or rural, and I’ve worked in both) is quite often a journey into communities gripped by violence, drug abuse, and extreme sexual promiscuity. As I discussed on Patheos, the only real transformations I saw came not through well-intentioned private gifts or government programs but at the foot of the Cross. That’s not to say that only religious conversion works, but I do think fighting through and out of poverty requires a heart-level commitment.
What do we do? It’s clear that hundreds of billions of dollars in transfer payments haven’t worked — except to deepen dependence, crush our national finances, and create a permanent underclass. But this shouldn’t cause us to despair. Since poverty in America is largely (though certainly not exclusively) behavior-based rather than status-based, there is an enormous amount of hope for any given individual. It’s incumbent upon us to reach out — move from our comfort zones to mentor, train, teach, and engage with our struggling fellow citizens. I’m inspired by Marcus and Michele Bachmann’s decision to take in 23 foster children. While it’s hard to believe that every single one of those relationships was or is perfect, there’s no doubt that she extended herself to serve others in a way that few ever will.
In a different post, I outlined what I think is an immutable law of service: You can have a tiny amount of influence over a large number of people or a large amount of influence over a tiny number of people. When I flew into Iraq the night of Nov. 22, 2007, to start my service in Diyala Province, I knew that my influence over the war in Iraq would be very, very small. If something happened to me, it would have zero impact on the course of the war. (It was still the right thing to volunteer to serve, but I was under no illusions as to my importance.) At the same time, however, when I hold my adopted daughter — who was born into absolute poverty in Ethiopia — I know that I loom quite large in her life.
Christ laid down his life to save a lost and sinful people. When we fail to follow His example, we have only our own depravity to blame.
Bravo David! On all counts...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat original post and this response to Kathryn, David. Kathryn's, response to you seemed like a weird reading of your post. She said, "David, there is quite a bit of depravity among the un-poor too..." You didn't assert (nor even imply) that there isn't. Would she have found it somehow less harsh if you'd also made the point that un-poor can also be depraved?
As I commented to her post, there's a lot to argue about (causality and such) regarding the studies that you cite, but your point was pretty straightforward: research indicates that there's a strong correlation between poverty and lack of virtue.
I'm sure that we all know un-poor who exhibit depravity of one sort other, but how does that invalidate the research you cite?
Maybe she was referring to your longer post on your website where you assert that your own work in and among the impoverished comports with the research findings. But again, how does merely making this assertion make it harsh?
In that longer post you say, "Simply put, any anti-poverty efforts not aimed at getting kids to complete an education, get married, and stay married are a waste of time." You can call it true, or untrue, but I'm still failing to see how it's harsh?
Anyway, good post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, what a great post. Succinct, honest, insightful and beautifully written.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you for a thoughtful, wide-ranging post. There's much meat on those bones, and plenty of marrow to stew over. Truly, thank you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmerican poverty is quite closely linked to individual moral choices
We're making some progress.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd do we know what these people look like?
Yes, we do - but unless you plan to live the rest of your life with a gun in one hand and a fire extinguisher in the other you can't say so.
Say so, then.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that poor judgment can and has caused people to fall into poverty. And poor choices tend to have a greater negative impact on a poor person than someone with more resources. That said, depravity isn't what caused this ball to get rolling. It was the government "safety net" system spawned in the first half of the 20th century, and its growth over the next 60 years or so, that initiated and greatly contributed to the social devastation we see today. In fact, poor blacks, for example, were making small but steady gains in coming out of poverty until those programs really ramped up. And by the rollout of the Great Society programs, things for that community came apart at the seams. The disincentives for breaking up poor families were neutralized as more women went onto welfare rolls. Fathers, as providers, became optional - and even a drag on the family - and the bad behaviors got worse and metastasized. And of course, the response was the throw more money at the problem, further reinforcing the downward spiral. The "safety net" essentially became a giant bear trap.
Given the current state of affairs, yes, I think only a change of heart for each individual in poverty is going to offer them a shot at escape. However, if the study from Mead's essay is right, this is something that is becoming less likely to happen. And that shouldn't be surprising. The incentive structure is stacked so the poor don't need church or other religious communities.
The best way forward is to kick supports out from the welfare state. A little of that was done in the 90s (and Obama as pretty much neutralized those changes). A Republican president and congress should do more to really begin dismantling the welfare state. It's the only way to really get poverty back under control.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDidn't Peggy Noonan make a related point recently, in connection with the London riots? I thought she had written that the only power that can break through systemic multi-generational poverty is genuine love, something government has a hard time providing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a lawyer experienced in representing the disadvantaged, I can say I think that a lot of the problems of the poor are based on genetics (this would validate J. Derbyshire), but there is some component of choice as well. I've seen countless examples of young people with low IQ's who cannot raise their own children. Yet, their grandparents, of the same genetic stock, could. It seems to me the difference is that the younger generation was raised to "find themselves," become "scholars," or otherwise "do their own thing," when they would have profited better by being drilled in the kind of rote learning that allowed their forbears to at least become minimally functional.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm late to the party but this discourse reminds me of the book the Tragedy of American Compassion. At this time I cannot think of it's author. But it's main point was as well meaning progressives pushed out private or religious institutions that were caring for the poor for better "run" non secular government agencies. Which then fail at both being well run and fixing the poverty. But in the end creating or encouraging more poverty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Author's name was Marvin Olasky. I haven't read it yet - I have a temp condition that makes it hard to read - but I will check it out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor all the positive comments here, if one more person talks to me about "Bush's unfunded wars..." I will now respond, "What about LBJ's unfunded 'war on poverty?!'" We have spent the 2011 equivelant of hundreds of trillions of dollars on "poverty" - real or perceived - with the "enemy" only spreading! (Forgive the quotes but we can't text edit these responses for emphasis.)
Our gov't is charged with protecting us from "enemies both foreign and domestic." If the enemy changes tactics, we change the offensive. (Always the offensive!) The paradigm of poverty has changed (Read, GROWN!)and we keep throwing more money at the problem. As one person put it, "Those who work for a living shouldn't have to support those who only VOTE for a living!"
Sorry if this was a segue from your point. But it's time we put a stop to welfare and take the war directly to the enemy; conscripting the victims to HELP us instead of waiting to be rescued.
Now, don't ask me how I REALLY feel!
To boil it down: poverty doesn't often cause depravity, but depravity often causes poverty.
You can give many of these people all the money in the world, and they'd be just as amoral and awful as Bernie Madoff or our reality television "celebrities."
It's a pity that many good people are poor. But just as wealth confers no special status, poverty is NOT nobility.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is difficult to see how anyone who, after an honest examination of self or a candid review of recorded history, can deny that man is depraved. Part of the problem lies in the perception of the word, depraved. The first definition of depravity is morally corrupt, the problem is people focus on the second definition, evil. Man is not as evil as he can be but no one can deny that all men are morally corrupt...Yet, they do, and that is example one of the crux of the problem which is the very topic under discussion, man's depravity.
Most people want to believe that man is inherently good, this desire only serves to prove how totally depraved man is. The vast majority of human experience, both personal and historical, consistently prove otherwise yet man's persistence in the 'inherently good' belief proves his nature is one of lying to himself.
Man constantly lies to himself and thus proves to himself, were he able to be honest with himself, that his every thought and action is influenced by his inherent corrupt nature. His inability to accept this fact, that he is unable to be honest with himself or that he fails to change his behavior to reflect what he knows to be true, is proof positive of his depravity.
This is an excellent post, Mr. French. Unfortunately, it is the very depravity of which you speak that causes some to try and refute it and the majority to deny its truth.
Proverbs 14:12 -NASB(©1995) There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBad choices, cause poverty for oneself and the next generation. This is true in families and nations. Moralistic choices basically follow the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Working hard for ones family will give them a better chance at escaping poverty. Of course someone that treats others well and cares about others before he cares about himself, is less likely to engage in selfish destructive behavior. So yes, selfish immoral behavior goes hand in hand with shafting the next generation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd like to expand the vision a bit to include family members and close friends of those without virtue.
Parents of those baby-makers and the babies they make suffer the effects.
Sometimes it is virtue itself (the adoption of family responsibility) that brings one to poverty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hate that Lopez had responded to the original post by misunderstaning so greatly a point that I thought was very clearly made -- "harsh" it was not -- but I'm very glad that it prompted a reply that is so reasonable, charitable, eloquent, and Christian.
--
I will say that, in at least one respect, none of that matters: none of it matters to a disturbing number of Leftists.
It doesn't matter if you oppose a government program, not because you focus only on those taxed to fund the program, but because of a concern for the intended beneficiaries: you're a greedy, self-centered so-and-so even if you oppose the program for their sake, because you've come to believe the program is ineffective and even counter-productive.
It also doesn't matter how much you urge private acts of charity and "walk the walk," because you're still self-centered unless you support coercion to force everyone else to contribute to some worthy cause.
In both cases, the Left must either ignore your point or assume it's argued in bad faith or out of a sort of false consciousness.
Bottom line, if you oppose a government program ostensibly intended to help the poor -- if you even oppose its growth at multiple times the rate of inflation, supporting "cutting" the program ONLY in the sense of slowing its explosive growth -- you don't really care about the poor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere the massive number of poor people in this country in the late 19th Century all "depraved"? Does that mean Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller were "morally righteous"???
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice try at totally missing the point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore that a nice try at missing the point. They missed it completely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHistory Buff, your post has absolutely nothing, zero, zip, nada to do with the intention of the article as written. It doesn't add anything to the argument, nor does it add perspective. If you're going to be snide or provocative, the least you could do is hit "spell check" first.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse