Is it more important to help the poor in absolute terms, or in relative terms? Put another way, is it more important to improve the standard of living of those who are poor, or to reduce the difference between their standard of living and that of those who are rich? Which would be preferable: economic conditions in which the standard of living of the poorest 10% improves by 50% while that of the top 1% triples, or conditions in which the standard of living of the poorest 10% improves by 10% while that of the top 1% declines by 10%?It seems to me that conservatives lean towards the former answer, while liberals lean toward the latter; conservatives generally don’t believe that income inequality really matters if standards of living are improving for everyone, while liberals, on my observation, seem to view income inequality as the primary problem. (This isn’t the only difference between left and right on this issue, as conservatives also still maintain a greater stress on the role of social pathologies such as drug abuse and promiscuity, as well as mental illness, in poverty, while liberals emphasize the role of injustice on the part of the rich and powerful; I’m hopeful that on these issues, however, the two sides have learned at least a little from each other, as it seems to me that there are more people now taking both sets of issues into account.) The question of which we value more goes a long way to determining what sort of policy approaches to poverty we prefer.
(While I’m at it, seemingly 🙂
As a liberal, I’d say that you’re definitely framing the question as a conservative would. 😉
We need to know what poverty is. Since it is normally measured compared to something else, if that something else improves, then by definition poverty deepens. All we’re doing is comparing life conditions with each other, right?
I also think this is a false dichotomy. If we focus on helping the poor, then we are helping them in both relative and absolute terms. If we focus on helping the rich, then we are, in my opinion, wasting our time and resources. I would say the same about having a lot of healthy people in the ER here at the hospital.
The problem we agree upon is poverty. I think conservatives like to say that when their policies mean one person with a million dollars has two million, while another who has a thousand dollars now has two thousand, that these are congruent and equally desirable. They are not to me, and some of liberalism is a response to that false-congruency.
But again, the problem we have is poverty. If we focus on helping the poor – however they are best helped – then we’re helping the poor. We don’t need to discuss how we want to sneakily help the rich too, or how we want to punish the rich.
The question does come up when we ask who should *pay* to help the poor. Conservatives seem to think that the poor should pay to help the poor, with some help from the rich perhaps. Liberals say that the rich should pay to help the poor.
Since our funding can’t grow on trees (much as we spend it like it does) someone has to pay for whatever our idea is to help the poor. The big difference from the liberal viewpoint is who is expected to do this.
*How* we help the poor is another matter. Right and left ignore evidence of the efficacy of the other side’s methods when there is any, and harp on situations where there doesn’t seem to be. To me, that’s because we frame politics as a fight between right and left – so if you admit the guy you’re fighting is strong, it makes you look weak, and no one in a fight wants to do that.
Its beyond me to figure out how to change this, however, so we just get the fight back and forth. Meanwhile, the income disparity is accelerating, for those who are bothered by that, and in both absolute and relative terms, the poor are worse off as time goes on in recent years.
I consider myself a conservative, and do not feel the rich should be the source of funding for government intervention on behalf of the poor. That being said, I think the rich should, out of generosity, be very concerned for the poor. If that rich person is a Christian, he should view the blessing of wealth as an opportunity to servethe poor in Jesus’ name.
The problem is that not every rich person accepts that challenge, which, in this fallen world, creates jealousy and resentment. That begs the question: should the government “require” generosity from the rich to prevent the resentment? I would argue no. There is not going to be a way to eliminate jealousy and resentment by legislation.
No doubt. We all have the limitations of our perspective; your representation of a conservative response to poverty is certainly nothing I’ve ever heard from a conservative (or anyone else). I still think the question is, do you focus on income inequality (“the poor” as a category) or on economic improvement (“the poor” as people who will do better if the economy does better, just as everyone else does)? When it comes to economic policy, I really do think that’s the left-right divide; I think you illustrate that when you say, “Since it is normally measured compared to something else, if that something else improves, then by definition poverty deepens.” Measuring poverty by comparison to the rich isn’t the only way to do it.
Now, when it comes to other aspects of policy, it’s another matter; and obviously, when it comes to non-governmental behavior, it’s another matter. This, I think, is one point at which your argument about communal responsibility comes in. I generally believe that governmental economic policy should be aimed at creating conditions of maximum general prosperity, rather than trying to rig the economy to favor any one group (in part because that doesn’t really work very well), and that within that, the church needs to rise up and call people–especially, but not only, the rich–to their biblical, God-given responsibility to take care of those who are less fortunate. That, it seems to me, will create the best set of conditions for the poor.
But of course, I don’t expect everyone to agree with me on that point. 🙂
Very good point!
Yeah – to be totally clear (as I comment endlessly) – I prefer almost no government whatsoever, a nd people getting together and figuring out how to solve problems without coercion wherever possible. I’m the guy who would disband the federal military and go back to state militias for mutual defense (a strict Second Amendment constructionist 🙂 So I don’t want to appear pro-government as the way to address poverty. I just think – the government is already something like 1/3 of our national economy; so until we find the will to collectively dismantle it, we need to limp along as well as we can.
I think I can see the resentment Joyce mentions going both ways. Behind this conversation is some resentment about redistribution – we all resent having some of our wealth taken from us by force (because that’s what taxes are) to be given to others – especially when it is taken to fund things we think are morally wrong, or maybe just wasteful and wrong-headed.
Ultimatley, I think that the government using power to redistribute is unavoidable – we’re all paying taxes after all. I’d MUCH rather my money be redistributed, say, to wasteful programs to combat poverty, than to a wasteful war killing poor people halfway around the globe. The fact that we have things like a military, or schools, or a health department, is also a form of redistribution – taking on what would ideally be everyon’e shared responsibility (mutual defense, equitable education, fostering good health) and making it the government’s responsibility on our behalf. I think that poverty can also fit into this category – ideally, generosity would win the day, but when we vote for people who redistribute, we’ve voting away that responsibility – for whatever reason each of us does it.
In my case, I grudgingly give up what is demanded of me in taxes, try to be generous and conscientious with what I have left over, and try to find ways to vote that don’t shrivel my conscience. Which is a lot harder than I’d like. I’ve almost always got the minority view in our political climate, so its the best way forward I’ve figured out.
Caila–thanks.
Doug–a lot of this, of course, is differing perceptions of value, which is why we have political parties to begin with. (I could, for instance, argue that the money spent to establish a democratic ally in Iraq has been well invested, and point out that most of the people our forces have killed have been middle-class, but that’s details.) I think you have the right spirit; there are times when I’m tempted not to vote because no candidate is pure enough, but then I remember the case of Roger Williams.
Hmm . . . maybe I should resurrect that old paper and write about that.
I think another part of the issue has to be that of desire. If those in poverty are merely given handouts, then what is the sense of getting out of poverty? I can just continue to live as I am, and my basic needs will be taken care of.
And what of the desire to be rich? Our economy rewards those who work hard (although not all those who are rich got it by hard work, a few lucky lottery winners come to mind here). But are we stifling people when we punish them for working hard, taking risks, and becoming wealthy?
I have to agree with those who say that less government interference is more. Some of those who are wealthy will hoard their wealth. Some will give generously. But “forced generosity” seems that it will only cause both rich and poor to become less motivated to reslove the real problem.
From my own experience, there’s a lot of truth to that.
I agree with smaller government.
The “Handout Theory” is true. If you can stay home and be provided a home, food, health care, school, etc.; where is the motivation to work? There is none. Instead of feeling sorry for them; “WE” should be empowering them to make their lives better. Reduce their food stamps, and say, you need to get that minimum wage job at the grocery store to help feed yourself. Learn a trade and get a better job. Save your money, move out of the state paid house, and buy your own house. One family at a time. Because I believe most of those people want to be self sufficient. But have lost the will to pull themselves out, because of all the years of being told…”You will never be given the same opportunities as whites, middle class or rich people.” All this achieves is to build the animosity between the races and social classes. Which hurts everyone.
I do not pity the poor, I blame those who force the welfare system on them. It keeps them enslaved to a corrupt, wasteful system that continuously feeds itself.
I don’t believe any one class of society should be responsible for helping those less fortunate. It should be shared equally among everyone. We should all be given the same access to public education, and health care. Credit and loans based on a persons ability to repay it. But most importantly, the Constitution must apply equally to “ALL” legal citizens. The poorest individual should not be represented any differently than the wealthiest.
I know there will never be a perfect society, but we can hold congress to higher standards, and if they fail…”Fire Them”!
I agree, we need to structure government (as much as possible) to empower people. I will note, though, that that’s a much more complicated task than simply giving handouts, and rather harder to explain to skeptics.
I agree with you