Today I received another of those e-mail forwards that supposedly tell the truth, but are actually rants full of stereotypes, misinformation, and–dare I say it–class warfare of the type that supposedly only the “left” does. This time the e-mail was about how the whole political debate is about those who do not have wanting to take away what those who have have supposedly legitimately and morally earned. That is, there appears to be this conception of people either barely doing their jobs or not having any jobs, but demanding that other people support them. This, of course, is the famous welfare stereotype that has been so over-used for 50 years in this country.
But, as I was driving in to work today, I heard one of those country songs that talks about growing up poor and yet having self-respect because you managed to put some food on the table and raise the kids right. Let me hasten to explain that this is what we should all be doing, whether we are poor or not. But, I realized that there is a terrible set of discrepancies between this song and what is being said by both various of the political candidates and all too many radio shows.
Herman Cain, the presidential candidate, recently stated, “If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.” [See the video above.] He has been asked about that remark, and it is clear that he does really believe that if you are not rich, if you are poor, it is your fault. I suspect that he means that you have not been sufficiently creative or enough of an entrepeneur. But, what this means is that all those nice country songs about the self-respecting poor must be wrong. They should actually have very little self-respect. The reason their family is poor and suffering is that daddy (or mommy) just does not know how to go about making money.
But, of course, that is not really what is going on in a country song. Many would answer me that they are talking about the farmer, or the small-town mechanic, or the person who is working a job with dignity and hard work, not asking anyone for anything. Unfortunately, there is no such explanation coming from those who speak about being poor being your fault. That farmer just is not being entrepeneurial enough. That small town mechanic needs to expand.
But then I thought some more and realized that it is indeed a dual-story that is being told, one that frees anyone else of any responsibility for their brother. If you put those two narratives together there are two types of poor. Frankly, there is some truth to that. There are the poor who are really just greedy grasping individuals and there are the self-respecting hard-working poor. How can you tell the difference? Well, I can see two ways, apparently.
If you are poor and willing to accept aid, then you are one of the greedy grasping poor. If you are poor and have too much “self-respect” to accept aid–frankly, that sounds like pride to me–then you are one of the self-respecting hard-working poor. There is a minor line in various of the narratives, but not in all of them. The greedy grasping poor seem to be found most often in the city, while the self-respecting poor seem to be found most often in small towns and in the countryside.
Now, this means that we need to not offer aid to the poor. After all, if you offer aid and they take it, they are greedy grasping poor whom you are encouraging in their lack of responsibility. If they are self-respecting poor, not only will they turn you down, but you will insult them (see the various country songs) by offering them “charity.” It is a convenient way to ignore much of what Scripture says about the poor, the widow, and the orphan. It is also a convenient way to ignore most any plea for help, since that must mean that they are greedy grasping poor.
Charity is then reduced to the occasional Thanksgiving basket that is given as a surprise gift to the self-respecting poor. You can probably get them to take that, or the occasional Christmas gifts for the children, that a widow-lady will not turn down but will weep with thankfulness over you. In passing, Cain’s 9-9-9 plan points out that any self-respecting poor person would not wish any special treatment (such as tax breaks) but would demand to pay the same as anyone else. Should he succeed, soon the income of those poor who do not pay any income tax because they are below the poverty line will be lowered, but they will certainly have more self-respect to feed them. And, if they do not, why that just proves that they are not deserving of a break anyway. (Someone cue the country song, please.)
One of the things I’ve noticed that comes with the idea that the poor and jobless are 100% to blame for their situation, is the implication that those who are financially successful are therefore 100% responsible for their own success. I think there may be a lot of Christians out there (in the U.S.) who agree with that. Having been laid off in 2010 and having gone back to school full time for the past year, I’ve chewed on these ideas a bit. I think one thing that people tend to forget is that one of the components of a person’s success are those little happy “accidents” of life that can make things fall into place–like being acquainted with just the right person at a company which leads to a job, or being in the right department (one that doesn’t get downsized), or investing in just the right stocks at the right time, etc. Of course, the opposite goes for many of those in bad situations. Are personal choices a factor? Sure. But sometimes neither wise nor foolish personal choices necessarily lead in one direction or the other, in terms of worldly success.
I think there is a similarity here to what C.S. Lewis warns about in Mere Christianity regarding judging others; we really don’t know someone else’s situation. At the very least this is cause for giving the benefit of the doubt, along with compassion. But in most U.S. political talk, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of that; it seems like a lot of judgment and sweeping generalizations to me.
Thanks, Fr. Ernesto, for posting your thoughts on these political issues. I normally don’t like reading political stuff on the web, but you seem to do a good job of trying to be fair, but realistic.
It’s the old question, “Who is my neighbor?” The right seems to be answering it with “Not him. Not her. Not you.” And they blame the poor to appease their own consciences.
Father, this probably isn’t the country song you were listening to (and I don’t think Pete Seeger would be offended by comparing him to country) but here is “Banks of Marble”, a song that fits right in with the Wall Street protests of today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-o3CJytIPE
Views in our contemporary US society haven’t changed much from back in Jesus’ day when he was walking around, have they?
Poor is also relative. Sometimes what is seen as poor in the USA would be seen as not so poor to the refugee who has fled with the clothes on his back and nothing else. My children shopped at Goodwill for school clothes at more than one time in our lives, but we did not see ourselves as poor and we always had something to give to someone who maybe could not even shop at Goodwill. My father was orphaned at a young age and his brother at 18 had the responsibility of raising his 3 younger brothers and sisters. They had very little, but my uncle worked in a grocery store and in the depression in the south, they always had food. They did not see themselves as poor when compared to folks with no food at all. I guess I was taught that if you have two cans of beans, you can share one with your neighbor who has none at all. I don’t have a whole lot, but compared to much of the rest of the world, I am rich beyond imagining. And I am grateful–
One can and should be grateful for what one has (it could always be worse) while yet, at the same time, being soberly aware of the inadequacies of one’s situation (if one is, for example, on the verge of homelessness) and especially, the situation of one’s neighbor or, if health is an issue, even one’s spouse.
That is what is particularly distressing about all this: the manifest lack of compassion for, and hostility toward, OTHERS so often on display by the likes of Mr. Cain and his spiritual kindred.
I have found more compassion and sharing among those who would be said to be the “have nots” in our society. When we worshipped in a predominantly black church in a less advantaged area of DC, we saw people holding chicken dinners to help a bereaved family raise money for a funeral and people chipping in for the fund to help with a neighbor’s health issue–even to help with rent so someone would not get set out.
The Bible doesn’t provide a clear definition of “poor”, which I think could be so that we, as Christians, don’t look for an excuse to not help someone because they aren’t “really” poor.
The relative measure of poverty is something I’ve seen and heard some American Christians us to say that a person in America isn’t poor. So even if that person barely made four digits of income each year for two years while looking for work that person “isn’t” really poor. I think some folks might need to be reminded that reading Austrian school economists isn’t the same thing as having the authority to decide who in America isn’t legitimately poor. 🙂
I think a lot of folks who don’t have very much would say that they are “not really poor.” A good friend who has not always had what he has now, I first met when he was living in a dumpster and he did not consider himself poor because his dumpster was clean and didn’t leak in the rain. In fact, I have said that I was not really poor when I didn’t have very much. Having spent some time in the inner city in DC, I met lots of folks who didn’t have much, but they didn’t consider themselves poor as they always had something to share–even if it was rice and beans.
No shoes vs no feet–