Editorial, compassion is human

My friend Ron and I have interesting discussions from time to time. He is a self-avowed liberal, and gently prods me whenever he gets the chance. He has obviously thought deeply about things, and he never name-calls like liberals tend to do. He also has done decades of sacrificial work on behalf of the less fortunate. This is a man I really respect.

So that’s why I take notice when he speaks. The other day he was sitting at my desk and said to me, “Rich, I’m a Christian, and I have one question. What do we do about the poor?” I told him that it was a good question. Have you noticed that people will complement the quality of your question when they don’t have a good answer?

Well, I propose to answer his question here. It would seem timely given our annual homeless controversy has once again arrived.

First, let’s analyze the question itself. Who is “we?” Does “we” mean “me and you?” Well, no. When you hear someone say, “What do we do about the poor,” the doctrinaire leftist is really saying “What is government going to do about the poor.” In fact, the farther left you go politically, the more inclined you are to accept the idea that if there isn’t a government social program the problem isn’t being fixed. They wouldn’t think to get out their own checkbooks and do something about it themselves.

Further, if someone opposes or criticizes a government social program, by extension that person is in favor of perpetuating the problem. And that’s why you hear things like, “Republicans hate the poor,” or, “Conservatives want people to die.” These of course are nonsensical criticisms, but some people actually believe them.

Indeed, opposing a government program in any way draws the inevitable criticism that one consequently hates all government, is prone to violence, and is a slack-jawed extremist. This has the effect of dampening debate, shifting the focus from the issue to personalities, and reducing honest dissent into a caricature. This should trouble any thinking person.

So, what do we do about the poor? First, let’s stop doing what hasn’t worked. Government social programs have not eliminated poverty. In fact, one could easily make the case that government social programs have perpetuated and increased the problems they are supposed to be solving. Second, let’s stop calling it compassion. Income redistribution is not compassion. A government check is not showing kindness.

Third, let’s free people to do what they are demonstrably good at: Giving of their time, their wealth, and their talent to assist those who have needs. Despite difficult economic times and burdensome government, Americans still give. Sacrificially. It amazes me that people still choose to help, even after government has taken from them such a large part of their income.

People are compassionate, not government. People sacrifice, not government. People deserve the credit, not some bureaucracy in D.C. Government is the obstacle that keeps people from being more generous. Government steals opportunities from caring people and inserts itself into the equation as the compassion bully.

People make the difference. United Way, Family promise, the soup kitchen, dozens of churches, and thousands of people in the Gallatin Valley step up every day to do the right thing. The fact that people are filling these needs is prima facie evidence that government has failed.

My friend Ron hasn’t told me if he thinks government is the answer to his question. I do know his answer will be well-considered and intelligent. I’m hoping, however, that given the overwhelming failure of government to fix our social problems that he will reach the same conclusion I have.