by PMCarpenter
September 14, 2005
In the context of weighing racial and class-based factors in the federal government’s woeful response to Katrina, the Washington Post related this succinct portrayal of the president’s political philosophy with respect to combating poverty:
“In the place of traditional poverty programs, Bush has touted faith-based social service programs, calling them more efficient and effective than those run by the government. Many programs of an earlier generation, he says, have served only to perpetuate the plight of the poor.”
Forty years of relentless right-wing campaigning on the fallacy that government programs “have served only to perpetuate the plight of the poor” has convinced a majority of Americans of the fallacy’s truth. But it has taken root among the electorate only because most Americans don’t examine the assertion’s basis any more than our intellectually lazy president has. It is received knowledge, not informed opinion.
At its core, conservatism is a profoundly antigovernment philosophy, not a pro-opportunity philosophy. The idea that proactive government perpetuates poverty, rather than poverty resulting from society’s structural flaws, is merely a cover story for reducing the cost of government to the haves, leaving the have-nots to the wolves. This may seem like an obvious point, too obvious to note even, and to an informed electorate it would be. But millions of Americans, having bought into conservatism’s simplistic solutions, have also bought into the idea that conservatism stands for a positive philosophy of alternative approaches to social betterment rather than a negative philosophy of limiting government at all social costs.
Without going into a dry, detailed history of what government programs have, in fact, done for the poor, consider again what the Post wrote about Mr. Bush’s views - that he “has touted faith-based social service programs, calling them more efficient and effective than those run by the government.”
Really? Are his faith-based programs somehow something new against which we can now evaluate the ineffectiveness of government?
Hardly. For private social-service programs dominated before the New Deal (and later the Great Society) intervened. It was the inadequacy of such nongovernmental assistance that brought about government’s efforts to do what private charities, principally churches, had been unable to do.
The deployment of Bush’s generous private-over-public aid as a national ideology to fight poverty and provide opportunity had plenty of opportunities itself to work. Prior to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance - need I go on? - those at a socioeconomic disadvantage had little to count on but what private charities had to offer. And it was precious little. The depth of charity’s inability to meet national needs became overwhelmingly apparent during the 1930s, and it was this that launched a fundamental change in approach.
Contrary to the right’s rhetoric and revisionist history, the New Deal wasn’t a manifestation of a bunch of wild-eyed socialists intent on destroying volunteerism and private charity for the sake of erecting big government. The New Deal came about only because private means of assistance had repeatedly failed as society’s principal fallback.
Conservatives love to hark back to a nostalgic America that never existed - to a bygone age when everyone pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, and only when it couldn’t be helped did the struggling ask the local church or community chest for a hand, which was always there for them. It wasn’t, of course, and it was capitalism’s unsparing nature that finally showed the inadequacy of private aid.
Modern conservatism is founded on a deliberately constructed, rose-colored historical myth. What perpetuates poverty is government’s inattentiveness, not its pro-activism. Again, this may seem bloody obvious to you, but far too many Americans have never stopped to consider the basics.
http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/
05:45 AM | Permalink