A fundamental problem for Christians who are also political conservatives is reconciling the biblical requirements to be compassionate toward the poor with conservative reluctance to involve the government in social welfare. The standard conservative response is to say that conservatives can be as compassionate as liberals, they just don't want the federal government leading the charge to help the poor. It is true that liberals and conservatives alike are giving of themselves to help the displaced citizens of New Orleans who, for the most part, were to impoverished to leave town. However if when the head of FEMA says he was surprised at how many people stayed behind, we get a sense that the leaders of the administration are out of touch. And this comment, by "Queen Mother" Barbara Bush, reinforces that impression:
"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this (she chuckled slightly)--this is working very well for them."
2 comments:
You lost me. How is the conviction that confiscation is not a part of charity invalidated by foolish comments by the spouse of a former politician? Does Barbara Bush actually have any say in public policy?
I'm totally out of the loop and not that familiar with the quote, but honestly, given human nature, it wouldn't be that bad a theory to suggest that some people deliberately stayed in the path of the hurricane so they could avail themselves of the lack of people after the fact. It was the first worry that popped into my mind when I heard they were evacuating the city. What does that have to do with compassion and charity?
The problem is that losing one's home, losing one's source of livelihood, in many cases losing contact with one's nearest and dearest, having to go without food, water, and a decent place to go to the toilet for days, is not doing very well, whether you are privileged or underprivileged.
Mrs. Bush comment seem to suggest that these displaced people are doing pretty well since they were underprivileged to begin with. The comment is compared to Marie Antoinette's comment that if the people have no bread, let them eat cake. It shows a lack of awareness of the situation in which the people find themselves.
I think it does matter, from the point of view of how your actions are going to be understood, if you are cutting the social welfare budget, and suggesting that the care of the poor not be done by govenment, that you show some consciousness of what it is like to be poor. Otherwise the poor will rightly say "You cut our budget and you have no idea what it is like to be in our condition."
Some unscrupulous people took advantage of the "state of nature" to benefit themselves. That's human nature; Christians call it original sin. Some of the charity that has been employed will be exploited.
Post a Comment