When President Franklyn Roosevelt initiated steps to thwart the depression his country was deep in, he cautioned against the real possibility that citizens would become dependent on the hand-outs the Federal Government was taking steps to provide. As he said at the time:
“Continued dependence upon relief indicates a spiritual and moral degeneration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”
The possibility that Roosevelt alluded to had been noted years before by such intellectual giants as Nietzsche and Dostoevsky who both saw “socialism” as a step toward the destruction of human freedom. Indeed, Dostoevsky thought socialism was the bastard offspring of the Church which, by making moral decisions for mankind, had robbed them of their humanity. If the Church or the State take care of people they will stop taking care of themselves. And taking care of themselves involves a struggle and, at times, suffering; these are the things that make us fully human. It is a dilemma: on the one hand there are folks who desperately need help and all who are able have a duty to care for them. On the other hand, this care can become a habit and rob those folks of the very freedom that makes them human.
Robert Kennedy in a speech in 1966 echoed Roosevelt’s warning, adding that “higher welfare payments . . .often lead to lifelong dependency.” The problem is how to find a balance between meeting genuine human needs and creating a situation in which those who receive assistance become dependent on it and find themselves unable to take care of themselves. The obvious solution takes the form of assistance with strings tied to it, assistance that demands that those who receive it do so for a limited amount of time and then fend for themselves, frequently referred to as “workfare.” Presumably this is what welfare reform is all about.
It’s not a Republican/Democrat sort of problem either, though there are Democrats who support all forms of welfare and there are Republicans who oppose all forms of welfare, which they see as hand-outs to lazy ne’er-do-wells. In a country that ponders the possibility of spending billions of dollars building walls to keep “terrorists” out and spends more billions to build planes and ships that can travel the world with nuclear weapons tucked away in their bellies, the notion that spending millions to help those in needs wastes our hard-earned money is truly ironic. And the notion that those in need are lazy is incredibly insensitive and wrong-headed. It is not the fact that millions are being spent on those in need that bothers so many people, however, it is the fact that they see those millions as being better spent on building higher walls. Or they point to anecdotes about abuse of the system, those who take without needing. In a word, we have a serious problem with perception and a loss of a sense of balance between what is being done and what should be done. And this in a nation that prides itself on its Judeo-Christian heritage!
Clearly, a wealthy nation such as the United States can afford to take care of those in need — whose numbers grow daily. The money that is spent elsewhere could be reshuffled easily to cover all costs. But the real problem is that those who receive this aid, regardless of how much money it turns out to be, must be enabled to take care of themselves. Many who receive welfare admit this and insist that their own self-respect depends on their eventually earning a living, taking care of themselves and their families– even if the income they earn turns out to be less than the money they are receiving on welfare! The notion that these people are all lazy ne’er-do-wells is twisted and distorted — and self-serving. These are folks like you and like me who have come on hard times. The issue is not whether we spend some of our tax dollars to take care of those who desperately need it; the question is how we do this while still making possible the retention of self-respect and a degree of human freedom that they require to go on with their lives and become healthy, productive citizens.
Hugh, good post. While the malingerers do exist, they are in much smaller number than believed by conservative thinkers. I cannot recall the study, so please forgive, but the percentage is around 6%. This jives with my experience helping homeless families. I find hard working people often with more than one job. In Cornel West and Tavis Smiley’s book “The Rich and the Rest of Us,” they cite that people in poverty are not less devout, they are not lazy, and are not drug users any more than in general society. Poverty is the lack of money, period.
We need to gear our programs around helping people climb ladders. Graded payments, living wages, career training, etc. This may seem out of place, but is key – access to birth control and family planning, as there is a high correlation with larger family size and poverty.
With this new Presidency, I have seen the war on the poor increase and the use of dated rhetoric that was not true then come back in spades (see Rep. Roger Marshall’s comments yesterday about the poor not wanting to healthcare. Keith
Thanks for your perspective. I am aware that you know whereof you speak — and, yes, I thought the time was right to touch on this topic (for what it’s worth!).
this applies as well to the people affected from disasters.. it can seem overwhelming while ‘meeting genuine human needs ‘ ….
thanks for this, hugh
You’re welcome — and thanks for the reminder about the dispossessed.
Thoughtful post, as always. I suspect these same questions will still be asked in another 100 years, as I’m not sure there is a ‘one-size-fits-all’ answer. Nonetheless, it is essential that we not lose our humanitarian perspective. I would rather help 10 who are lazy bums, than risk letting a single child go to bed hungry.
Precisely. The same argument I would use against capital punishment: better to err on the side of compassion!