Sometimes it seems like American conservatives are less interested in solving problems than they are in establishing that the problem is visited only on the people who deserve it.
It’s as if they do not really care about reducing poverty as such. They just want to make sure that the people who are poor are those who deserve to be poor. They do not want to decrease the number of people who are uninsured. They just want to make sure that those who are uninsured are uninsured because of their own bad choices. Sometimes I think they would rather see people dying in the street than see any kind of redistributive government policy to save them–just so long as those dying are doing so because of their own choices.
To them it seems unfair and counterproductive to shield people from the worst consequences of their bad decisions. Especially if it means shaving off some of the benefit from those who ostensibly made better choices. In other words, don’t tax the successful to shield the unsuccessful from the consequences of their poor life choices. Doing so distorts–no, perverts–the natural order of things in which the virtuous prosper and the wicked flounder.
Putting aside the sheer inhumanity of it, the problem here is that this Calvinistic view assumes a just world. That is, a world in which people reliably get what they deserve. It isn’t luck, it isn’t chance, it isn’t genetics, it isn’t large societal forces or anything outside of an individual’s control–it’s their own choices.
But the Just World Hypothesis is wrong. It’s an error, a common cognitive bias that has been studied for decades.
Poor people may indeed have made bad choices. But some are just unlucky. Many are both. Meanwhile, the ease and privilege of the wealthy may not be entirely due to their superior life choices. Some of it might be good luck. In some cases, it’s entirely good luck. That’s life. It’s complicated. And it’s often unjust.
Understanding this is one of the reasons people like myself feel that it is appropriate for those of us who are doing ok to chip in and ease the burdens of those in less desirable life circumstances. There are practical reasons to do this as well, but that is the moral case for it. You can’t accurately detect someone’s character and decision making skills simply by observing their life circumstances. Sometimes the wealthy are just lucky and the poor unlucky.
I prefer to make my own luck.
Like choosing to be born white and male and in America.
“You can’t accurately detect someone’s character and decision making skills simply by observing their life circumstances. Sometimes the wealthy are just lucky and the poor unlucky.”
Absolutley. This is, I think, profoundly true and worthy of reflection. I would even go so far to say that most often things are not as they appear, and the real story behind someone’s life circumstance might be more complicated and surprising than you could imagine.
By definition, most kids born into a wealthy family are lucky. They can fuck up all they want and have an enormous (padded, fur-lined) safety net waiting for them. A kid born into a poor family, even one where the grownups are working hard and going to church and buying healthy food and insisting on homework etc., is already at a disadvantage because if even one little thing goes wrong, all hell breaks loose. An injury or illness leads to a week off from work leads to getting fired leads to not making rent leads to getting evicted leads to etc. etc. It ain’t fair. And I’m willing to pay more in taxes (there, I said it!) to make sure that those in my community (neighborhood, city, district, county, state … country … planet) can get a fair shake at making a go of it. We are all humans, and we are all in this together.
I would disagree: they don’t want consequences for their own group: Jamie Dimon is well-protected, regardless of what he does. These elites may lose jobs, but they keep millions. Now it’s simply an open rip-off. Take this story as one example.
I see your point. But having the resources to shield oneself from misfortune could be seen as just another example of how they’re living their lives right. Lazy people do not have such resources. Or something.
So what’s stopping you? If you want to help people who are in need, then help them. Not a single Conservative will ever stop you from helping a poor person. In fact, many of them go out of their way to do so. The difference is the mechanism by which they help… and I don’t mean by spitting on them as they cross them on the street and telling them to pull them up by their bootstraps.
Americans are actually, per capita, the most generous people in the world. They give more to private charity per capita than any other country in the world… and by a lot. Paying taxes is not a generous act. It is an act that is required by law, and so has no moral component. Giving voluntarily however, either through money or time, is a generous act.
So if you want to help people… then help them! Nothing is stopping you! Give your time, your money, your whatever… do it! Conservatives do it all the time, and so can you!
Your personal contribution and effort will do more than any tax dollars will ever do… because they have your concern, your attention, your monitoring, your caring, and a lot of other things that bureaucracies can’t have. And the less we take in taxes… the more money people will have for private charities.
The difference is the mechanism by which they help
I honestly believe that at some level charitable people are loath to support policy to help the very same people they personally give to is because they fear the government gives the money to people who don’t deserve it. Private giving feels like–and in some cases genuinely is–a means to exert more control over who gets your money.
But you’ve made me think of another reason givers might prefer it: it makes them “generous.” I realize that there’s no true altruism in the world, but the way conservatives make such a big deal out of what is and what isn’t a generous way to help poor people one can hardly avoid the conclusion that being meritorious, getting a gold star (perhaps in the eyes of God?) is one of the reasons they give. I’m not as interested in that. I’m pragmatist. Give me results over accolades any day.
And the less we take in taxes… the more money people will have for private charities.
I suppose that’s true. But the idea that we could end a government program like WIC and expect that private charity will get the job done is absurd.
I think you’re letting your Atheism really cloud your judgement and view on people.
Yes, people feel good when they help someone else. So the fuck what? Why is that a bad thing? And you know what… when people feel good doing something… THEY DO MORE OF IT! People who hate paying taxes… try do DO LESS OF IT! People who feel good giving to a charity, and helping an individual, maybe on a very personal basis, gets pleasure from that, and wants to do more. And isn’t that the fucking point? It isn’t about having a gold star with God, its about having a personal connection with another human being that they’ve helped. You call yourself a pragmatist? It sounds more like you’re cold and detached. You want to know people got helped, but you don’t want to do the work of actually being around them.
And I think you also discount the importance of having the receiver of charity have a personal connection with the giver. People try harder when they know where something came from. People take less for granted when they know who gave something. And if you don’t think that people try to game the government system, then YOU are fooling yourself too.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned as I’ve gotten older… the one thing that I really didn’t “get” when I was younger is that people, and emotions matter. Bureaucracies tend to have rules, and systems, that have nothing to do with charities, but with someone else’s political motivations… and they tend to be detached from people.
Private charity tends to be more about the people involved. They’re smaller scale… they’re more “intimate”… they’re more focused… and those are all good things.
I’m not entirely sure why, but people seem to get really heated in these discussions. And it often happens that I get personally attacked. I know emotions are running high when even Nick is dropping F-bombs and using all caps on me.
And you know what… when people feel good doing something… THEY DO MORE OF IT!
You’re right, of course. And believe me, I don’t mean to discount this dynamic. It’s great. I know from personal experience. I’m just saying it’s not a complete breakfast. Private giving is never going to take the place of WIC or Social Security. It just isn’t. We need big, government programs like this to make big, meaningful dents in these kinds of problems. I just wish the people who were so charitable privately would get that and stop fighting such measures.
Restating my hypothesis:
Many conservatives feel that redistributive policies designed to help the poor simply penalize the virtuous and reward the lazy, derailing the natural mechanisms whereby people’s behavior is shaped by consequences, and thereby make the world a worse place rather than a better one. On that basis they refuse to support such policies. While this is an interesting bit of reasoning as far as it goes, following it would result in making poverty worse, so it can’t really be a complete understanding of the issue. At best it’s a moralistic and one-dimensional view of a more complex problem. It also falls quite in line with the Just World Hypothesis, an error in thinking well-documented by psychologists.
And that’s pretty much all I’m trying to say.
Social Security isn’t charity. If Social Security were charity, then not everyone would receive it.
Fair point. Medicaid, then. Pick your program.
I think part of the issue too is the feeling that people create “charitable” programs that end up pulling everyone in. For instance, your initial statement that Social Security was a form of charity. Was that really a slip?
It’s one thing to have charitable programs that exist for those who are in need. Its another to create systems whereby everyone has to participate in them, even if they have the means not to.
Part of it I think is the desire to make a charity seem less like a charity. We don’t want people to “feel bad” that they’re getting help. The problem is that people who don’t need help, who are “in the system”, feel like their hands are tied in a system they don’t want to participate in, and then try to tear apart the system so they don’t have to be in it, which then harms those it was originally intended to help.
Charity is charity. It is not for everyone to participate in. It should be limited to those who truly need it, so that those who don’t need it, can be free to do other things that they have the means to do.
Nick, why are conservatives (at least those in Washington) so eager to end (or seriously cut back) Social Security? It’s a highly efficient program, and many depend on it heavily, especially as businesses abandon their pension programs (because they raided the funds for those programs and then lost them).
your initial statement that Social Security was a form of charity. Was that really a slip?
Well, the fact that everyone receives it makes it fall outside our charity category maybe, but it is a program designed to alleviate poverty and it’s one that’s at least a little redistributive and it’s one that conservatives seem to hate.
The problem is that people who don’t need help, who are “in the system”, feel like their hands are tied in a system they don’t want to participate in, and then try to tear apart the system so they don’t have to be in it, which then harms those it was originally intended to help.
You’re saying that people who don’t need SS retirement benefits rail against the entire system because they’re forced to participate anyway? Hm. It’s an interesting argument. You’re sure it isn’t the same reason people rail against other poverty-alleviating programs funded by their tax dollars? Because they’re afraid it derails the mechanisms by which good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is punished? Or because they don’t’ trust those “other” people not to take advantage of everyone’s generosity? (Which is a whole other subject of discussion. The fact that ethnically homogenous nations have no problem funding such programs while ethnically heterogenous ones like ours seem to.)
The one thing that kind of confuses me here Scott, is why you seem to be against good behavior being rewarded, and bad behavior being punished.
If its ok for government largess to be reaped upon those who did bad things, then you’re ok with all of the bailouts that took place on the banks?
I think good behavior should be rewarded. I also think that doing stupid things has consequences, and people should feel those consequences, so that they’re less likely to do stupid things in the future.
I think that of the individual, just like I think that about banks. With that said… even if people make tons of stupid mistakes, and gets themselves in a shit pile worth of trouble, we shouldn’t let them die on the street. If their parents made tons of mistakes, which makes it hard on the next generation, we should try to help them out of it. That is what charity is for. But I do think that charity should *feel* like charity. You should know you’re getting it. It shouldn’t be cushy… because then people will be less likely to avoid stupid mistakes that put them in trouble.
why you seem to be against good behavior being rewarded, and bad behavior being punished[?]
I don’t, of course. I simply think the effectiveness of unchecked poverty to shape people’s life choices is overestimated by a great many people when it comes to making public policy.
If its ok for government largess to be reaped upon those who did bad things, then you’re ok with all of the bailouts that took place on the banks?
That’s an interesting example. I was, and still am, in favor of the bank bailouts. The wrongness, the error, wasn’t in bailing them out. I for one was terrified at the prospect of our five largest financial institutions going bust. No, the wrongness was in allowing them to become too big to fail and allowing them to engage in this kind of risky behavior. That wrongness, continues, by the way. Banking regulations have not risen to the challenge of dealing with the situation. The ideal scenario would have been not to deregulate the industry in the first place. A less good scenario is to bail them out and re-regulate the industry in response. A bad scenario is to bail them out and fail to deregulate the industry. (What we’re doing now.) A terrible scenario would have been to not bail them out at all. Or so it seems to me. And the principle of allowing the natural consequences of behavior to have their effect would have guided us to just letting them fail.
doing stupid things has consequences, and people should feel those consequences, so that they’re less likely to do stupid things in the future.
Of course I agree. But the idea that United States social safety net programs are widespread eliminating the negative consequences of people’s bad life choices is, to put it mildly, an exaggeration. It’s simply not the case that I could, I don’t know, drop out of high school and become a heroin addict and still expect to have a middle class lifestyle enjoyed by responsible people. (Not unless my last name is Romney, anyway.) Besides, supposing natural consequences aren’t sufficient to stop people from making such mistakes? And supposing such mistakes create negative consequences for the rest of us as well? What then?
even if people make tons of stupid mistakes, and gets themselves in a shit pile worth of trouble, we shouldn’t let them die on the street.
Of course I know you well enough to know you’re not a heartless bastard.
“I think you’re letting your Atheism really cloud your judgement and view on people.”
Really. If anything, ‘Atheism’ allows us to concentrate squarely on the human dimension. You know – the dimension and issues that we live with right now as a matter of reality, in a rational manner devoid of delusion. If anything, it is precisely religion that clouds judgement and brings irrational motives into the public sphere.
If anything, it is precisely religion that clouds judgement and brings irrational motives into the public sphere.
Maybe. But I think in this case it’s just our natural tendency to attribute the misfortune of others to their own doing and our own misfortunes to external forces we can’t control.
“It’s simply not the case that I could, I don’t know, drop out of high school and become a heroin addict and still expect to have a middle class lifestyle enjoyed by responsible people.”
Well of course not… but I’m not really talking about someone who has A LOT to lose. Where it becomes a concern is on the margins… ie… people who are on the verge of either side of the poverty line.
Unfortunately, the way that these benefits are setup, is in such a way that people are punished for raising themselves slightly up out of poverty. If you get a job that pays slightly better, that lets say gives you an extra $5k a year, that could mean the loss of $10k worth of benefits. For that person, the logical, rational decision, is to forgo the better job, and stay on the dole.
A better welfare system is one that would gradually increase the benefits as you increase your pay, so that you are truly encouraged to get out of the system, while at the same time still have the net in case things don’t go right.
This is NOT how the system works today… and that is a real problem.
If you get a job that pays slightly better, that lets say gives you an extra $5k a year, that could mean the loss of $10k worth of benefits. For that person, the logical, rational decision, is to forgo the better job, and stay on the dole.
I agree, this does happen and it shouldn’t. I think the solution is to have sensitive sliding scales that don’t deincentivize someone’s moving ahead economically. You see this a lot with issues like health insurance, by the way. Someone receives Medicaid or Badgercare. They get offered a full-time job or a better paying job–but with no benefits. Of course they can’t take it because they’d lose their health insurance. Maybe not a huge deal for a young, healthy person with no children. But if you’re middle aged, or you have any medical conditions at all, or if you have dependents…forget it. The solution most definitely isn’t to not give low income people help with health insurance in the first place, however. And that is exactly the lesson many conservatives would draw from this scenario.
A better welfare system is one that would gradually increase the benefits as you increase your pay, so that you are truly encouraged to get out of the system
I think some programs do operate this way. But perhaps not all. And those that do might not be doing it in an optimal way. This problem doesn’t make programs like these into roach motels, though. It’s not the case that once you get in you can’t ever get out. Most people receive these kinds of benefits for 2-3 years, I think. Obviously most people leave the program. We’re talking about people at the margins who might stay on longer than they otherwise would have. It isn’t a fundamental flaw, nor is it any indication that programs like these are untenable. Again, many conservatives would say just that.