Last week I had the privilege of participating in a panel discussion at a large local church that was essentially about the role of Christians in the “Occupy” movements (one of the leaders of Occupy Nashville participated) and the proper Christian response to poverty and inequality. I’ve participated in many such discussions over the years, and I’m always struck by the core assumptions of many on the Christian Left: First, that America has not done enough — either charitably or through government programs — to improve the plight of the poor; second, that the right kind of governmental investment will make substantial differences in American poverty; and third, that America’s poor are largely victims of the wrong kind of government policies and individual greed.
For these individuals, the $16 trillion we’ve spent on means-tested welfare since the War on Poverty began represents a grossly inadequate expenditure, and the answer (it’s the same answer with public education, by the way) is more, more, more — more money, more programs, and more taxation. Yet after $16 trillion, we have a different kind of more, more, more — more illegitimacy, more citizens in poverty, and more inequality, with growing stickiness at the bottom.
Over at the The Atlantic, Megan McArdle has been writing an excellent series of posts on poverty (this is one of my favorites) that show both the profound limits of anti-poverty programs and the difficulty of real character change. (“Get married and stay married” is great advice, but in shattered neighborhoods, where are the truly eligible future spouses?) I love this observation:
As adults they are the products of everything that has happened to them, and everything that they have done, but they are also now exercising free will. If you assume you know the choice they should make, and that there is some reliable way to entice them to make it, you’re imagining away their humanity, and replacing it with an automaton. Having higher wage jobs available would give people more money which would be a good thing, and it would solve the sort of problems that stem from a simple lack of money. But it would not turn them into different people. Public policy can modestly improve the incentives and choice sets that poor people face–and it should do those things. But it cannot remake people into something more to the liking of bourgeois taxpayers. And it would actually be pretty creepy if it could.
The evangelical world is locked in an often-heated battle over the proper response to continued poverty in America, with much of that battle focused on politics. But I agree with Megan: public policy can modestly improve choices and behaviors, but it can’t “remake” people. That requires an ingredient all too often missing from the poverty debate: individual engagement and investment in the lives of the poor. Can any government program surpass in importance the influence of mentors or, say, foster parents? If poor kids face daunting challenges to good decision-making, can’t additional or replacement role models make a profound difference?
The political problem, of course, is that you can’t mandate and systematize the kind of engagement that makes a large-scale difference. The choice to engage is only meaningful if it’s a real choice motivated by something far more potent than any government program. We can, however, stop defining engagement down. Advocacy isn’t necessarily public service and “fighting for” the poor means much less than actually meeting the poor where they are. Simply put, a protest is a poor substitute for a relationship.
“A protest is a poor substitute for a relationship.” – How true. Some years ago, I participated (peripherally so) in an event where successful black businessmen—some quite liberal—spoke with inner city teens about getting ahead in the world. In a refreshing departure from what I expected, the men spoke about being mentors – with no talk of “whitey” being out to get them or of “the man” keeping them down.
Essentially, their message was: “I’ve been where you’ve been. Take my hand, and I will be your guide. I’ll show you how to get out of the ghetto and become successful, without putting on a basketball jersey or recording a hip-hop album.”
Money can only do so much, and the empirical evidence shows that more & more & more money is making things worse, not better. In fact, there is no amount of money in the world that can create character in a young man or woman. They need strong parents, strong grandparents, or, where lacking, willing and strong mentors. That’s why in Proverbs we’re admonished to “teach our children well.”
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"public policy can modestly improve choices and behaviors"
I am not entirely sure that even that is true. But what IS true is that public policy (the welfare state) can, and has, destroyed families and communities.
Yes, there alot of other factors: increased material prosperity reduces the immediate penalty for failure to make wise choices and loosens the bonds of family and community, therefore people make worse choices, leading to longer term dependency, etc. But the values which underpin those choices have also been under direct assault as hopelessly square and outdated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, these Christian groups have no idea what "poverty" in America actually means today. 90%+ of those supposedly living in "poverty" have goods and services available to them that even the rich of 30 years ago could only dream of. There is virtually no Dickensian poverty in this country -- and what little there is is almost certainly the result of crime, substance abuse and/or mental illness. These groups must be made to realize that their push for ever greater welfare spending is undermining the very qualities and virtues that would lift the poor out of poverty -- hard work, personal responsibility and thrift.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThese people are the intellectual heirs of the 19th century Social Gospel movement. One is free to decide whether they are Christians who have adopted socialism as a strategy or socialists who have adopted Christianity as a cover. I prefer to leave that determination to the Creator and assess these people according to their works, which have been almost uniformly destructive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePoverty has been effectively redefined as "having less than the ones who have more."
Under that definition, Socialism/Communism is the only viable solution to poverty, since it reduces the number of those who have more to zero, outside government that is, thus making everyone equally impoverished.
Those who govern in Socialism/Communism then become "the wealthiest 1%."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery well put.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight on David! Gov't, at best, can get the heck of the way. The private sector (churches, charities, families and individuals) is the only place where people can really help other people. The least helpful thing is, often, a gov't check in the mailbox. Even private parties trying to help the disadvantaged can often hurt. External Link
Liberals never hear success stories like Danny Wurfel's work at Desire Street Ministries all over the South, New Orleans, similar work here at Common Ground in Montgomery, Alabama where I and my family have been involved. External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd like to challenge the assumption that "public policy can modestly improve the incentives and choice sets that poor people face–and it should do those things."
I'd say it is the exceptions (welfare reform and compstat-type policing) that prove the rule: public policy cannot improve what the poor face, and it should not try to (social engineer) do those things.
And the welfare and policing reforms have been significantly rolled back/altered in many places.
Perhaps government should just try doing less--spending less, taxing less, interfering less--and let innovators, entrepeneurs, workers, volunteers, and yes, churches/religious institutions and non-profits all get on with their various missions in life. It's not possible for government to have the answers, muchless all the answers. I have trouble pointing to any major or minor government program that excells--outside of the military, a program that's actually a contitutional mission.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, the military works partly because the government is good at breaking things, and that is a goodly portion of what the military is supposed to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe military has options that poverty programs do not.
1. They can and do reject unsuitable persons.
2. They select for cognitive ability.
3. They have comprehensive behavior-control measures.
4. They have new intakes 24/7 for two months for resocialization.
Many people from the underclass are unfit to join the military. When standards have been relaxed to permit them to, as in Macnamara's 100,000, the results have been bad both for the military and for marginal recruits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSuper. Another panel of self-appointed panjandrums claiming to represent evangelicals. Just shut up already and stop giving respect to Occupy, et cetera. Carry out the Great Commission why don't you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, unfortunately most mission-oriented churches focus overseas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem with Americans is that they think that can eliminate poverty.
After $16 trillion spent you would think that Americans would wake up to the fact that some dragons can't be slain.
The joke's on us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a rare instance where I can cite an objection to government poverty programs as both anti-libertarian AND anti-Christian (take that Ayn Rand).
A couple years ago I heard Charles Murray say the following at a CATO event: "The real problem of the welfare state is not that it harms the outcomes that it tries to effect--though it clearly does--but that it competes with what individuals want to achieve for themselves."
Matthew 22:21 establishes a separation between church and state that is fundamental to Christianity. His command to follow Him was clearly aimed at each follower to take up his own cross and serve others. It is antithetical to his work to construe the message as a call for government taxation those other than yourself to serve the poor. This was a call of service and sacrifice on the part of each follower of Jesus, and as Matthew 22:21 makes clear, this has nothing to do with the state.
Which brings me back to Murray's point. Not only have the poor been trapped in poverty on a generational scale by government poverty programs, but these programs have usurped most of the work churches have historical provided for the poor themselves. As Murray said, the government is competing with what individuals want to do for themselves and, as Christians, must do for themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI really enjoyed reading your comment, very insightful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePoint well taken. Why the gratuitous slap at Ms. Rand? It detracts from your argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe comment you take issue with simply references Rand's well known belief that no true libertarian could be a Christian. I don't see it as detracting from the argument, but then I suppose there are always people who take issue with minutia and miss the forrest for the trees.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReally? The earlier comment seemed to suggest no true libertarian could ever agree with a Christian about anything, something Ayn Rand never said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho cares what Ayn Rand thought about libertarians...she hated libertarians and expressed her distaste for libertarians at every chance.
Ayn Rand was a follower of objectivism not libertarianism.
By far the great majority of libertarians are 'minarchists' which is pretty much a believe along the lines of what the US was originally designed to be, a very limited government pro-liberty system.
There are many christian libertarians, including some staunchly pro-life ones. There is a very good libertarian pro-life argument along the lines of the non-aggression-principle and many libertarians are anti-abortion because of it.
Personally I am a very devout catholic libertarian, and nothing make me cringe more than the church spouting off about socialism.
I think modern Christians are just too darn lazy and want the government to do everything, instead of being willing to get dirty and do the hard work of taking care of the poor and those in need themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy are there groups like Tides foundation and others whose mission includes making sure that 20% of Americans understand that they are impoverished? An impoverished person in the US is wealthy in at least half of the world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse