I have a rule that I’ll only speak or write about politics
if I’m willing to offend both sides of our political spectrum. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel the need to
find balance in the discussion. If you
read on you’ll find that I state a clear ideological preference but, as it
relates to the issue of poverty in America, both sides needed offended.
While there is no shortage of topics that define the chasm
between conservatives and liberals, none is more distinct than the issue of
poverty. This most recent divide found its
roots in 1964 when President Johnson announced his ‘War on Poverty’ as part of the
‘Great Society’ programs. It was a well-intentioned
attack on the injustices of socio-economic inequalities in America. Unfortunately, while we’ve succeeded in
raising the standard-of-living for the poor, poverty and socio-economic
inequality is worse fifty years later. In the time since there have been several
revisions to our “welfare state” as conservatives would take ground against the
entitlement programs that seemed to be better at creating customers than
lifting families out of poverty. It’s
been a cycle of indulgence by liberals and indifference by conservatives.
This divide is not just found in our governmental institutions. Recently I attended two Christian conferences
on the issue of poverty. Both
conferences were focused on the issues of poverty alleviation and both had
emphasis on how poverty is manifest in the U.S. What’s interesting is that
while the topics were very similar the approaches were very different. Both were led and attended by good people
wanting to make a lasting impact on this issue.
I left one energized and I left the other disappointed.
What was the difference?
Adam. Okay, this will take some
explaining, so hang on while we travel down the rabbit hole a little
further.
As I listen to both sides of the political and religious debate
on poverty I see a very common thread that is revealed in the solutions. One approach, the more liberal, sees man
(Adam) as basically good and if he goes on to do bad things or make bad choices
it’s outside of his nature. The idea
runs into problems when you see the greed, violence and economic injustices in
our society. How could something born so
pure go on to do such selfish things? To
reconcile this tension liberals tend to blame environmental causes for what
made something good make bad choices. The diagnoses are bad influences, limited
opportunity, poor education systems or racial injustice. There is a lot of evidence to support the
diagnosis. However, the prescription for
these problems is advocacy and entitlement programs that seem to create more dependency
than freedom. Today 51% of Americans receive
some type of government subsidy.
The other approach sees Adam as inherently selfish. He’s born with the ability to make good choices
but his nature is self-gratification first.
If Adam is to be, or do, better he must be responsible for his actions
and pay the price for bad choices. If
Adam and Eve are shackin’, spend their money on cigarettes and drink too much beer,
they’re going to be poor. The
conservative view point is high on personal responsibility and consequences for
poor choices. It promotes ethic and
effort and if man is poor it’s because he’s “alarm challenged” and needs to “pull
himself by his boot straps”. There is no question that our economic system
rewards accountability and white upper middle-class cultural compliance. Its power sources ensure that these qualities
rank highest. Unfortunately, too many
conservatives are comfortable leaving the able bodied adults on the economic
sidelines due to poor effort while at the same time condemning their children to
a life of poverty. These children
represent the lion share of the vulnerable poor and have no choice in the
matter but are likely to repeat the generational cycle they’re born into.
Where do I stand? I’m
a conservative. In my politics and
theology. However, I’m a conservative
that can no longer stand indifferent to the plight of the poor. My black and white, Fox News, world has been
disrupted by a sea of gray. The world
that I had figured out makes much less sense to me today as I spend time with
people that were not raised by the same parents that raised me. I can no longer stand on the sidelines
throwing ideological criticisms at those that cared enough to get
involved. If I’m going to offer a more
conservative view of the nature of man I have to be on the field. I’ve forfeited opinions in exchange for relationships.
When I entered this world eight years ago I thought God had
a plan for me to show poor people how to raise their social standing. Jobs
programs, educational opportunities, better choices, less sin. I thought my “success” standing in contrast
to their “failure” would help me look good and them behave better. Eight years later I’ve discovered that people
are basically the same, regardless of their income brackets. We look different but we want similar things
from this life. Our selfish human nature
prevents us from seeing the innate value that each other have but our mutual brokenness
binds us together. This brokenness isn’t
disabling, it’s unifying. This brokenness
requires change. A change strong enough
to transform our nature and offend our politics.
