In this morning's Dallas Morning News it was reported that Catholic Charities, a national network of charities, stated that three quarters of its agencies nationwide are experiencing an increased demand for food while its budgets have had to be cut due to a decrease in donations. It was also reported that the Bridgespan Group, an advisor to charities, said that 80 to 100 percent of nonprofits responding to a recent survey have had to cut funding. While expenditures by many charities nationwide have had to be cut because of reduced donations during these hard financial times, demands upon these charities have increased: also due to these hard financial times. In Richmond, Virgina, the Central Virgina Food Bank reports demand is up 50 percent from last year. Additionally, it was reported that the national jobless rate remains near 10 percent, meaning that the demand on charities is unlikely to decline anytime soon.
As Congress continues to debate the $850 billion health care bill, charities nationwide dedicated to the poor and the suffering face closing their doors or cutting services due to dwindling funding. Many of those charities provide free health care services to those unable to pay. While they often do not provide significant medical care, they play a crucial role in keeping health care costs down by treating ailments and illnesses that, if left unchecked, very well could lead to the need for hospitalization. As importantly, they reduce the need by the poor and uninsured to use emergency rooms for treatments easily taken care of in clinics and doctor's offices; a not insignificant health care cost. Many Americans are struggling to keep their jobs and pay their bills. The existence of health care charities and services goes a long way to help ensure that those that lose their struggle will at least have access to free health care. That is, unless national health care chokes them out.
The poor are rarely a segment of the electorate that politicians care about other than to pay lip service. The real prize is the middle class. Despite the rhetoric in Washington of helping the poor and the suffering, National Health Care is about helping the middle class. Many in the middle class might need help, especially those who have lost their jobs and face mounting bills. But it would seem that the best way to help those who have lost their jobs or are having difficulty paying their bills and feeding themselves and their families is not to give them free health care, but to help them get a job. The efficacy of the massive spending by the government to stimulate the economy is still a matter of debate.
Spending $1 trillion dollars on health care seems an unlikely way to go about stimulating the economy, unless one aspires to be in public service or is an out of work health care professional. If one is determined to spend a trillion dollars, they should give it back to the taxpayers. $1 trillion in the hands of consumers would go a long way towards fixing the economy. If it did not lead to everyone in the country getting a job or being able to afford health insurance, it at least might help to increase charitable donations. Better funded charities would alleviate a great deal of suffering and hunger. Moreover, charitable giving not only benefits those in need, but provides an intangible benefit by increasing good will among those who give, as well as those who receive.
Charitable groups can do what the government cannot: provide affordable, effective health care to those who need it. They also do what the government will not, provide service with a minimum of bureaucracy, regulation, and politics. Perhaps this is the real reason why Washington is so determined to pass national health care. If Americans are to receive a service they need and want, it is too often felt that the government should provide that service. If government provides that service, they will get the credit, and the control.
If national health care is passed, the government will gain control over a large and growing sector of our economy. Those who supported it will get the satisfaction of believing they have done something noble and selfless. Those that receive the gift of National Health Care will have the burden of relying upon it for their care. Every one else will just have to settle for paying for it.
In the face of suffering and misfortune, many feel that the least they can do is to support the government in its effort to address that suffering and misfortune. Unfortunately, all too many people are content to do the least they can do.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Voting Rights and Representaion
Attorneys in Irving, Texas are hard at work on a lawsuit against the school district there. They have filed suit against the city of Irving claiming that the city's at large election system violates the Voting Rights Act by denying Hispanics adequate representation. It is hoped that by creating single member districts, some with majority Hispanic populations, that not only would more Hispanics be encouraged to vote, (at least those who are eligible to vote), it would help towards getting more Hispanics elected and thereby boost their influence.
It is believed by some that Hispanics will only vote for Hispanic candidates. If this is true, it should be a cause for concern. Americans are frequently told that to prefer one person over another because of race or ethnicity, particularly if one's own race and ethnicity are the measure, is racist. Obama's election was heralded by many as America's (or at least a significant percentage of the America public) transcendence over race. The willingness of Americans to vote across the lines of religion, race, and ethnicity has long been a goal in this country. It used to be the case that the refusal of voters to cross those lines was common. Italians voted for Italian candidates, Irish for Irish candidates, and Catholics for Catholic candidates, etc. While this was once the norm it is no longer so. There are no doubt many who still vote that way, but they are few enough to be considered quaint or nostalgic. This is a tendency that for the most part is not missed.
After so much time and effort has been spent in this country to overcome racial and ethnic bias, why is it being encouraged, and even applauded in the case of Hispanics? Why is it when Hispanics vote for Hispanics because they are Hispanic, they are not censured or criticized as prejudiced?
Hispanics are a rapidly growing minority. There are many cities and regions that have majority Hispanic populations. If Hispanics are encouraged to vote for Hispanic candidates, and applauded when they do, what will it mean to the non-Hispanic residents of those cities and regions? Most likely, they will be told to accommodate themselves to the new reality of their situations. Perhaps in time, after the novelty of political power and representation wears off, Hispanics will no longer feel obliged to support Hispanic candidates. But this is only supposition.
Richard Engstrom, a professor at Duke University, blandly claims that "Latino voters show a clear preference for Latinos." This bias is reported as a simple matter of fact with no implication or inference of prejudice. Moreover, it is being proposed that this prejudice should be encouraged through creating majority Hispanic voting districts. By divvying up political representation according to race and ethnicity we are discouraging assimilation and integration: two ideas that have not always been viewed with disfavor.
If someday we wind up with two distinct communities across the Southwest, one English speaking, the other Spanish speaking, we will have taken a giant step backward from the goal of assimilation. Naturally, this is only a bad thing if assimilation is considered a desirable goal. For many it is not.
It is believed by some that Hispanics will only vote for Hispanic candidates. If this is true, it should be a cause for concern. Americans are frequently told that to prefer one person over another because of race or ethnicity, particularly if one's own race and ethnicity are the measure, is racist. Obama's election was heralded by many as America's (or at least a significant percentage of the America public) transcendence over race. The willingness of Americans to vote across the lines of religion, race, and ethnicity has long been a goal in this country. It used to be the case that the refusal of voters to cross those lines was common. Italians voted for Italian candidates, Irish for Irish candidates, and Catholics for Catholic candidates, etc. While this was once the norm it is no longer so. There are no doubt many who still vote that way, but they are few enough to be considered quaint or nostalgic. This is a tendency that for the most part is not missed.
After so much time and effort has been spent in this country to overcome racial and ethnic bias, why is it being encouraged, and even applauded in the case of Hispanics? Why is it when Hispanics vote for Hispanics because they are Hispanic, they are not censured or criticized as prejudiced?
Hispanics are a rapidly growing minority. There are many cities and regions that have majority Hispanic populations. If Hispanics are encouraged to vote for Hispanic candidates, and applauded when they do, what will it mean to the non-Hispanic residents of those cities and regions? Most likely, they will be told to accommodate themselves to the new reality of their situations. Perhaps in time, after the novelty of political power and representation wears off, Hispanics will no longer feel obliged to support Hispanic candidates. But this is only supposition.
Richard Engstrom, a professor at Duke University, blandly claims that "Latino voters show a clear preference for Latinos." This bias is reported as a simple matter of fact with no implication or inference of prejudice. Moreover, it is being proposed that this prejudice should be encouraged through creating majority Hispanic voting districts. By divvying up political representation according to race and ethnicity we are discouraging assimilation and integration: two ideas that have not always been viewed with disfavor.
If someday we wind up with two distinct communities across the Southwest, one English speaking, the other Spanish speaking, we will have taken a giant step backward from the goal of assimilation. Naturally, this is only a bad thing if assimilation is considered a desirable goal. For many it is not.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Virtue of Compelling Virtue
There is a great deal of talk these days about the need for sacrifice. In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, William McKenzie chides us here in the U.S. for our unwillingness to sacrifice. He writes that "most of us are unwilling to make the changes necessary to resolve big problems." Climate change and health care top his list of those things people are unwilling to sacrifice for.
While McKenzie makes a plausible argument, I believe he has missed the point. Sacrifice exists in abundance in the U.S. There is no shortage of people willing to sacrifice for their children, friends, families, and communities. In the U.S., there is an extraordinary compassion for those who have suffered and are suffering. Disasters and tragedies often bring about a swell of charity from the public. We expect people to make sacrifices in times of war and suffering, and they rarely disappoint. The problem all too often lays in what it is people are being asked to sacrifice and for what purpose.
The further an issue lay from the lives and interests of people, the more problematic it is to expect sacrifice. A hungry, unfortunate, or ill family member can often rely on the beneficence and sacrifice of friends and family to aid them in their time of need. Churches, charities, and local communities can be relied upon as well. The problem arises most often when the government is relied upon. Government services often alleviate for many the sense of obligation to the poor and the suffering. Like Scrooge, many advocate for, and rely upon government programs to relieve them of their obligation to those in need. Often the easiest thing to do for others is to write a check or pay your taxes: or demand that society, i e. the government, take care of them.
Sacrificing for strangers and causes is laudable, even virtuous. But like love or trust, sacrifice and compassion can be asked for, even hoped for, but they should not be demanded. When sacrifice and compassion are demanded, or worse, compelled, they lose whatever virtue or merit they possess. Suffering and misery may be alleviated by compelling others to assist, but there is nothing virtuous, compassionate, or noble about it. Many who support health care reform fancy that they are motivated out of compassion. They often flatter themselves that it is their "values" that compel them to labor for social and economic justice. The reluctance and indifference to the cause they perceive in others only reinforces their determination to persevere. They are determined to conscript others, less virtuous and compassionate than themselves, and, if need be, compel them to participate in their cause through taxes, regulations, and laws.
It is common to hear others speak of the need to compel society to the goal of justice. The health care debate is replete with demands for sacrifice and effort on our parts in behalf of the suffering and unfortunate. Certainly there is nothing wrong with urging people to take action to aid those who are in need. It is right to appeal to the virtue and compassion of others. But it is quite another thing to compel it. Even if we set side the question of what it is people are being asked to sacrifice for, there is nothing virtuous or compassionate in compelling virtue and compassion from people. The virtues of compassion and sacrifice lay in the voluntary choice by people to act in accordance with them.
People in the U.S. have demonstrated great compassion for each other, and on many occasions, for people throughout the world. People in the U.S. have also demonstrated great willingness to sacrifice for each other and those in need. From the compassion of families and loved ones, to the efforts of churches and charities to assist the suffering and mistreated, the willingness of Americans to help each other is an issue that should not be in doubt. The abundance of charitable groups and foundations dedicated to the ill and the poor are a testimony to the compassion of the American public.
Nor have Americans proved indifferent to changes necessary to help the environment. There have been great strides made by the American people over the last few decades to improve the environment. From unleaded gasoline and reduced reliance on coal, to recycling, managed foresting, and efforts to reduce pollution and carbon emissions through alternative energy, Americans have proved to be extraordinarily sympathetic and accommodating to the environment, both here in the U.S. and globally. While it is true that the government participated in cleaning up the environment through laws and regulations, the environmental movement was a bottom up movement and took decades before it became part of our national fabric.
It is possible, as Mckenzie asserts, that many are not willing to make the changes "necessary to resolve big problems." It may also be true that people are not being asked to make reasonable sacrifices for the right things. Ask people to sacrifice for their family, their friends or those suffering in their community, and one will not often be disappointed. Ask them to sacrifice for an abstraction like "nature" or "humanity" and things become more complicated. To compel people to sacrifice is another thing altogether. Compelled virtue is no virtue, even though to those doing the compelling it may feel otherwise.
Persuasion is never a bad thing. Compulsion is almost never a good thing. To claim that Americans are oblivious, or even hostile to changes that need to be made to solve problems, be it social "justice" or the environment, simply reflects the impatience of a crusader. The vehemence and urgency with which change is demanded simply reflects the ardor of a zealot. While compelling virtue and demanding compassion may feel like noble causes, they are anything but.
While McKenzie makes a plausible argument, I believe he has missed the point. Sacrifice exists in abundance in the U.S. There is no shortage of people willing to sacrifice for their children, friends, families, and communities. In the U.S., there is an extraordinary compassion for those who have suffered and are suffering. Disasters and tragedies often bring about a swell of charity from the public. We expect people to make sacrifices in times of war and suffering, and they rarely disappoint. The problem all too often lays in what it is people are being asked to sacrifice and for what purpose.
The further an issue lay from the lives and interests of people, the more problematic it is to expect sacrifice. A hungry, unfortunate, or ill family member can often rely on the beneficence and sacrifice of friends and family to aid them in their time of need. Churches, charities, and local communities can be relied upon as well. The problem arises most often when the government is relied upon. Government services often alleviate for many the sense of obligation to the poor and the suffering. Like Scrooge, many advocate for, and rely upon government programs to relieve them of their obligation to those in need. Often the easiest thing to do for others is to write a check or pay your taxes: or demand that society, i e. the government, take care of them.
Sacrificing for strangers and causes is laudable, even virtuous. But like love or trust, sacrifice and compassion can be asked for, even hoped for, but they should not be demanded. When sacrifice and compassion are demanded, or worse, compelled, they lose whatever virtue or merit they possess. Suffering and misery may be alleviated by compelling others to assist, but there is nothing virtuous, compassionate, or noble about it. Many who support health care reform fancy that they are motivated out of compassion. They often flatter themselves that it is their "values" that compel them to labor for social and economic justice. The reluctance and indifference to the cause they perceive in others only reinforces their determination to persevere. They are determined to conscript others, less virtuous and compassionate than themselves, and, if need be, compel them to participate in their cause through taxes, regulations, and laws.
It is common to hear others speak of the need to compel society to the goal of justice. The health care debate is replete with demands for sacrifice and effort on our parts in behalf of the suffering and unfortunate. Certainly there is nothing wrong with urging people to take action to aid those who are in need. It is right to appeal to the virtue and compassion of others. But it is quite another thing to compel it. Even if we set side the question of what it is people are being asked to sacrifice for, there is nothing virtuous or compassionate in compelling virtue and compassion from people. The virtues of compassion and sacrifice lay in the voluntary choice by people to act in accordance with them.
People in the U.S. have demonstrated great compassion for each other, and on many occasions, for people throughout the world. People in the U.S. have also demonstrated great willingness to sacrifice for each other and those in need. From the compassion of families and loved ones, to the efforts of churches and charities to assist the suffering and mistreated, the willingness of Americans to help each other is an issue that should not be in doubt. The abundance of charitable groups and foundations dedicated to the ill and the poor are a testimony to the compassion of the American public.
Nor have Americans proved indifferent to changes necessary to help the environment. There have been great strides made by the American people over the last few decades to improve the environment. From unleaded gasoline and reduced reliance on coal, to recycling, managed foresting, and efforts to reduce pollution and carbon emissions through alternative energy, Americans have proved to be extraordinarily sympathetic and accommodating to the environment, both here in the U.S. and globally. While it is true that the government participated in cleaning up the environment through laws and regulations, the environmental movement was a bottom up movement and took decades before it became part of our national fabric.
It is possible, as Mckenzie asserts, that many are not willing to make the changes "necessary to resolve big problems." It may also be true that people are not being asked to make reasonable sacrifices for the right things. Ask people to sacrifice for their family, their friends or those suffering in their community, and one will not often be disappointed. Ask them to sacrifice for an abstraction like "nature" or "humanity" and things become more complicated. To compel people to sacrifice is another thing altogether. Compelled virtue is no virtue, even though to those doing the compelling it may feel otherwise.
Persuasion is never a bad thing. Compulsion is almost never a good thing. To claim that Americans are oblivious, or even hostile to changes that need to be made to solve problems, be it social "justice" or the environment, simply reflects the impatience of a crusader. The vehemence and urgency with which change is demanded simply reflects the ardor of a zealot. While compelling virtue and demanding compassion may feel like noble causes, they are anything but.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)