|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
The Daily Signal
The Unintended
Consequences of the Welfare State on the Human Spirit
Walter E. Williams
May 09, 2018
Before the massive growth of our welfare state, private charity was the
sole option for an individual or family facing insurmountable financial
difficulties or other challenges.
How do we know that? There is no history of Americans dying on the
streets because they could not find food or basic medical assistance.
Respecting the biblical commandment to honor thy father and mother,
children took care of their elderly or infirm parents. Family members
and the local church also helped those who had fallen on hard times.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, charities started
playing a major role. In 1887, religious leaders founded the Charity
Organization Society, which became the first United Way organization.
In 1904, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America started helping at-risk
youths reach their full potential. In 1913, the American Cancer
Society, dedicated to curing and eliminating cancer, was formed. With
their millions of dollars, industrial giants such as Andrew Carnegie
and John D. Rockefeller created our nation’s first philanthropic
organizations.
Generosity has always been a part of the American genome. Alexis de
Tocqueville, a French civil servant, made a nine-month visit to our
country in 1831 and 1832, ostensibly to study our prisons. Instead, his
visit resulted in his writing “Democracy in America,” one of the most
influential books about our nation.
Tocqueville didn’t use the term “philanthropy,” but he wrote
extensively about how Americans love to form all kinds of
nongovernmental associations to help one another. These associations
include professional, social, civic, and other volunteer organizations
seeking to serve the public good and improve the quality of human lives.
The bottom line is that we Americans are the most generous people in
the world, according to the new Almanac of American
Philanthropy—something we should be proud of.
Before the welfare state, charity embodied both a sense of gratitude on
the behalf of the recipient and magnanimity on the behalves of donors.
There was a sense of civility by the recipients. They did not feel that
they were owed, were entitled to, or had a right to the largesse of the
donor.
Recipients probably felt that if they weren’t civil and didn’t express
their gratitude, more assistance wouldn’t be forthcoming. In other
words, they were reluctant to bite the hand that helped them.
With churches and other private agencies helping, people were much
likelier to help themselves and less likely to engage in
self-destructive behavior. Part of the message of charitable groups
was: “We’ll help you if you help yourself.”
Enter the federal government. Civility and gratitude toward one’s
benefactors are no longer required in the welfare state. In fact, one
can be arrogant and hostile toward the “donors” (taxpayers), as well as
the civil servants who dish out the benefits. The handouts that
recipients get are no longer called charity; they’re called
entitlements—as if what is received were earned.
There is virtually no material poverty in the U.S. Eighty percent of
households the Census Bureau labels as poor have air conditioning;
nearly three-quarters have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or
more. Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have at least one
computer. Forty-two percent own their homes.
What we have in our nation is not material poverty but dependency and
poverty of the spirit, with people making unwise choices and leading
pathological lives, aided and abetted by the welfare state.
Part of this pathological lifestyle is reflected in family structure.
According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year
11 percent of black children and 3 percent of white children were born
to unwed mothers. Today it’s respectively 75 percent and 30 percent.
There are very little guts in the political arena to address the
downside of the welfare state. To do so risks a politician’s being
labeled as racist, sexist, uncaring, and insensitive. That means
today’s dependency is likely to become permanent.
Read this and other articles at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
