I'M RESPONDING TO A COMMENT BY Chris, one of my conservative/libertarian readers, to my posts about an email from one John Wall.
Chris continues:
For example, your very well written discussion regarding not wanting to separate the country and your nicely done assumption building as to the real motivation for Conservative thought, letting poor people starve, etc.
Thanks for the compliment on my writing, Chris, but I have to be clear that I never said or even implied that "the real motivation for Conservative thought" was "letting poor people starve, etc."
I simply don't believe that any conservative wants anyone to go without health care, or food, or clothing.
Really.
What I did say was that the set of rather extreme positions which John Wall presented in his email would, if they were really pursued, result in greater taxes on the poor and middle class, getting rid of the national park system, Medicare, Social Security, the military, the fire department and the police.
The distinction is important for two reasons:
- First, there's a big difference between someone wanting people to go without, and someone wanting other things which will actually cause people to go without—particularly if that same person doesn't see the connection.
I do think that many of the policies which conservatives support would lead to a lot of poverty, injustice, and suffering.
But you think the same things about liberal policies—and I'm willing to bet that you don't think we would want that to happen, any more than I think you would. - On the other hand, I don't think that all conservatives would support the extreme positions advocated by John Wall, and I certainly don't think you would, Chris.
In fact, I intended to be very clear that the group of people who John claimed to represent didn't include most conservatives I know.
You go on...
But, we do want people to take responsibility for themselves...
I believe you, Chris, and I think this is one real and important difference between us.
I don't mean wanting people to take responsibility for themselves—I want that just as much as you do.
I mean that we have different views about how to accomplish it.
Recently, in Los Angeles, there's been a project to give homeless people a place to stay.
Until now these people—many with poor health, mental problems, and even drug addictions—have had to earn their way to any assistance with housing by showing progress before they get help.
Those old policies are both completely in line with the conservative demand for self-reliance, and they also were failing: the people in question were not able to stand on their own two feet.
The new program is having some promising results; people who were failing under the old rules have been able to begin taking control of their lives, and to begin to take responsibility for themselves, because they were offered help they didn't "deserve".
It's not a utopian solution—it's a solution that has mixed results and requires a lot of hard work—but it's producing better results than the "sink or swim" approach.
(The program also appears at this point to be cheaper in tax dollars: homeless populations are very expensive to cities.)
Having a background in Christianity, I am tempted to call the new approach an instance of grace, but in a political sense I would simply call it liberal.
My point is that I agree with you that it's important for people to take responsibility for themselves, but I disagree that the best way to achieve that is to let them sink or swim.
Most people want to be self-reliant.
If they aren't self-reliant, it generally means something has gone wrong—something they may need some help with, to get back on their feet.
It's to everyone's benefit to respect that, and extend a hand.
Next: Individual Responsibility and Local Government
