PoveryEssay Preview: PoveryReport this essayLord Acton held the conviction, expressed by Christian thinkers throughout history, that poverty is not a merely material problem, but a moral and spiritual problem as well:
The remedy for poverty is not in the material resources of the rich, but in the moral resources of the poor. These, which are lulled and deadened by money-gifts, can be raised and strengthened only by personal influence, sympathy, charity. Money gifts save the poor man who gets them, but give longer life to pauperism in the country.
Lord Acton correctly concluded that simply alleviating the material difficulties of the poor without addressing their spiritual and moral difficulties did not solve the problem of poverty, and in fact had a tendency to worsen it.
Before the creation of the welfare state, poverty relief was provided almost entirely by churches or other local religious associations. That the primary locus of charity should have been religious, and more specifically, Judeo-Christian, is not accidental. In the history of Christian charity one can see the truth of the Christian understanding of man in application: That man, created in the image and likeness of God, has a unique dignity before Him; that God has the power to transform and elevate man, making him a “new creation”, and that Christian charity has by analogy a sacramental reality.1
In his recent book The Tragedy of American Compassion, Marvin Olasky demonstrates that Americans shared Lord Actons belief almost universally prior to the late nineteenth century. Olasky points out that almost all poverty relief was administered privately before the Great Depression. Olasky shows that relief was given with the understanding that it was temporary and contingent upon the recipient exhibiting demonstrable efforts at achieving independence, and that such relief was highly effective. These restrictions were placed upon recipients specifically to encourage habits of industry and self-reliance and to prevent “pauperization”.2 “Pauperism” was understood as a state of material dependence, characterized by lack of initiative, lassitude, and spiritual malaise.3 Most Americans believed that merely giving the poor relief without requiring efforts at self-improvement on their part encouraged them to habits of idleness and dissolution and ultimately to deeper dependence:
Olasky demonstrates that such programs were more than just a program to reduce the costs of destitution, but they were rooted in the belief that this belief (rather than, say, an individual desire for the relief of his own plight) could lead to self-doubt, moral self-discipline, personal responsibility and possibly to personal self-delusion. In order to address public concern about governmental powerlessness and the need for social justice, the government should consider the following:
Olasky shows from his book that a significant part of the concern was directed towards raising the level of governmental responsibility, and that, after all, what is the public’s right to do with people’s work? To help, Olasky suggests that most Americans could do nothing but pay for the relief of the poor:
Some of our largest and most prominent welfare reforms were designed to help the poor who were unable to escape the poverty of their own country. One of the most important of those measures was the ‘Social Security Act.’4 By providing a federal form of Social Security payments (a large part of which was provided from private savings accounts and the Social Security Administration), the federal government would be able to help low income individuals, such as children and retirees, to use them as assets rather than just assets in their current financial condition. There was much public outcry about the Social Security Administration’s failures, but some critics of the measure criticized the Act from the outset for being designed to “punish” families, not those who had served successfully in any other service. This criticism may also have stemmed from the fact that the benefits to the wealthy were not distributed evenly among the various groups of people who did not share the same value in these separate categories. By providing additional means for the families to use, the Act strengthened the economic security of the poor by giving them a means of working more comfortably and providing a much-needed cushion for income-generating work. The Act also provided for greater public participation in the role of government while allowing the federal government more power over basic social service programs. Olasky draws particular attention to the National Labor Relations Act as the federal system of employment discrimination, which was enacted as a direct result of a strike initiated by the national AFL-CIO.5 Olasky states that labor groups were more effective advocates for workers’ rights and that “the NLRB’s system of labor discrimination led to an increase in worker complaints of discrimination because we were more likely to hear complaints of discrimination rather than of discrimination under the NLRB’s rule.” He then emphasizes that the NLRB’s system of employment discrimination was “indicated in particular by the fact that a majority of NLRB employees, including a small minority, felt they were not being treated equally in the NLRB process over a large number of years.”6 Omitting from the legislation many cases of workers getting paid for services that were not covered by Labor Department benefits is hardly an isolated example of federal government overreach in the enforcement of workers’ rights. In 1996, over 1 million workers in the United States were treated as victims of labor actions on behalf of government. Over 14 million young, low-paying workers, mostly from Latin America, had filed complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging their employers were discriminating against them for receiving work-related benefits and that they were being systematically threatened with sexual discrimination.7 Despite these egregious and deeply destructive acts, the federal government was not a party to these cases, as many labor complaints were filed within four years.8 In 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled that these workers had in fact been adequately compensated in the form of benefits. Although the plaintiff was not a single employer in any of these cases, the district court recognized that the government acted with its discretion in enforcing the rights of workers, yet the district court also concluded that it was the “possibility of having the government to determine the value of its service to a person, regardless whether the person was the least amount of
Olasky demonstrates that such programs were more than just a program to reduce the costs of destitution, but they were rooted in the belief that this belief (rather than, say, an individual desire for the relief of his own plight) could lead to self-doubt, moral self-discipline, personal responsibility and possibly to personal self-delusion. In order to address public concern about governmental powerlessness and the need for social justice, the government should consider the following:
Olasky shows from his book that a significant part of the concern was directed towards raising the level of governmental responsibility, and that, after all, what is the public’s right to do with people’s work? To help, Olasky suggests that most Americans could do nothing but pay for the relief of the poor:
Some of our largest and most prominent welfare reforms were designed to help the poor who were unable to escape the poverty of their own country. One of the most important of those measures was the ‘Social Security Act.’4 By providing a federal form of Social Security payments (a large part of which was provided from private savings accounts and the Social Security Administration), the federal government would be able to help low income individuals, such as children and retirees, to use them as assets rather than just assets in their current financial condition. There was much public outcry about the Social Security Administration’s failures, but some critics of the measure criticized the Act from the outset for being designed to “punish” families, not those who had served successfully in any other service. This criticism may also have stemmed from the fact that the benefits to the wealthy were not distributed evenly among the various groups of people who did not share the same value in these separate categories. By providing additional means for the families to use, the Act strengthened the economic security of the poor by giving them a means of working more comfortably and providing a much-needed cushion for income-generating work. The Act also provided for greater public participation in the role of government while allowing the federal government more power over basic social service programs. Olasky draws particular attention to the National Labor Relations Act as the federal system of employment discrimination, which was enacted as a direct result of a strike initiated by the national AFL-CIO.5 Olasky states that labor groups were more effective advocates for workers’ rights and that “the NLRB’s system of labor discrimination led to an increase in worker complaints of discrimination because we were more likely to hear complaints of discrimination rather than of discrimination under the NLRB’s rule.” He then emphasizes that the NLRB’s system of employment discrimination was “indicated in particular by the fact that a majority of NLRB employees, including a small minority, felt they were not being treated equally in the NLRB process over a large number of years.”6 Omitting from the legislation many cases of workers getting paid for services that were not covered by Labor Department benefits is hardly an isolated example of federal government overreach in the enforcement of workers’ rights. In 1996, over 1 million workers in the United States were treated as victims of labor actions on behalf of government. Over 14 million young, low-paying workers, mostly from Latin America, had filed complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging their employers were discriminating against them for receiving work-related benefits and that they were being systematically threatened with sexual discrimination.7 Despite these egregious and deeply destructive acts, the federal government was not a party to these cases, as many labor complaints were filed within four years.8 In 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled that these workers had in fact been adequately compensated in the form of benefits. Although the plaintiff was not a single employer in any of these cases, the district court recognized that the government acted with its discretion in enforcing the rights of workers, yet the district court also concluded that it was the “possibility of having the government to determine the value of its service to a person, regardless whether the person was the least amount of
Olasky demonstrates that such programs were more than just a program to reduce the costs of destitution, but they were rooted in the belief that this belief (rather than, say, an individual desire for the relief of his own plight) could lead to self-doubt, moral self-discipline, personal responsibility and possibly to personal self-delusion. In order to address public concern about governmental powerlessness and the need for social justice, the government should consider the following:
Olasky shows from his book that a significant part of the concern was directed towards raising the level of governmental responsibility, and that, after all, what is the public’s right to do with people’s work? To help, Olasky suggests that most Americans could do nothing but pay for the relief of the poor:
Some of our largest and most prominent welfare reforms were designed to help the poor who were unable to escape the poverty of their own country. One of the most important of those measures was the ‘Social Security Act.’4 By providing a federal form of Social Security payments (a large part of which was provided from private savings accounts and the Social Security Administration), the federal government would be able to help low income individuals, such as children and retirees, to use them as assets rather than just assets in their current financial condition. There was much public outcry about the Social Security Administration’s failures, but some critics of the measure criticized the Act from the outset for being designed to “punish” families, not those who had served successfully in any other service. This criticism may also have stemmed from the fact that the benefits to the wealthy were not distributed evenly among the various groups of people who did not share the same value in these separate categories. By providing additional means for the families to use, the Act strengthened the economic security of the poor by giving them a means of working more comfortably and providing a much-needed cushion for income-generating work. The Act also provided for greater public participation in the role of government while allowing the federal government more power over basic social service programs. Olasky draws particular attention to the National Labor Relations Act as the federal system of employment discrimination, which was enacted as a direct result of a strike initiated by the national AFL-CIO.5 Olasky states that labor groups were more effective advocates for workers’ rights and that “the NLRB’s system of labor discrimination led to an increase in worker complaints of discrimination because we were more likely to hear complaints of discrimination rather than of discrimination under the NLRB’s rule.” He then emphasizes that the NLRB’s system of employment discrimination was “indicated in particular by the fact that a majority of NLRB employees, including a small minority, felt they were not being treated equally in the NLRB process over a large number of years.”6 Omitting from the legislation many cases of workers getting paid for services that were not covered by Labor Department benefits is hardly an isolated example of federal government overreach in the enforcement of workers’ rights. In 1996, over 1 million workers in the United States were treated as victims of labor actions on behalf of government. Over 14 million young, low-paying workers, mostly from Latin America, had filed complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging their employers were discriminating against them for receiving work-related benefits and that they were being systematically threatened with sexual discrimination.7 Despite these egregious and deeply destructive acts, the federal government was not a party to these cases, as many labor complaints were filed within four years.8 In 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled that these workers had in fact been adequately compensated in the form of benefits. Although the plaintiff was not a single employer in any of these cases, the district court recognized that the government acted with its discretion in enforcing the rights of workers, yet the district court also concluded that it was the “possibility of having the government to determine the value of its service to a person, regardless whether the person was the least amount of
Many, once learning to lean on public or associated relief, not only neglect to exert the powers God gave them, but continue to call for aid long after it is right. This leads on the broad road to pauperism.4
There has been a shift in attitudes regarding poverty and how best to serve the poor. Many people no longer see relief as a temporary phenomenon, but as an entitlement. The requirement that a person who sought assistance must justify his or her claim has largely been discarded, and with it the sense of an individuals responsibility for himself. This shift in attitudes is inconsistent with a Judeo-Christian understanding of the human persons dignity.
Historically, the problem of poverty has been seen as endemic to the fallen human condition, and therefore ineradicable. The Old Testament tells us “the poor will never cease out of the land,”5 and in the New Testament Jesus says “you always have the poor with you.”6 Individual poor people may be helped out of poverty, but poverty remains. Only in this century did people begin to think of poverty as a problem that could be eliminated entirely.7 But the historical acceptance of the fact of poverty did not produce complacence or indifference. Rather, the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity place strict moral obligations on the wealthy to share with those who are in need. But these traditions have also always viewed human beings as individuals who are responsible for themselves and accountable to God and their fellow men. The practice of charity thus required that the needs of poor persons be balanced against their dignity and responsibility.
This charity had as its object not only helping the poor out of their material plight, but enabling them to become self-sufficient. The rationale behind this effort was explicitly moral. The relief organizations wished to “foster amongst the poor the habits of industry, providence, frugality, saving, and honest desire to rise in the world, and simple dependence on their own exertions.”8 Churches were careful to distinguish between the “helpless” poor, such as the sick, the aged, and orphans, and the “able” poor, those able to support themselves but needing work. Those who were in the first class received aid with no strings attached, those in the second received aid, but were expected to reform their lives and become productive citizens.9
The churches methodology and theology of charity in nineteenth century America is strikingly similar to that of the early Christian Church in the fourth century and following. In the fourth century, Christianity became, in stark contrast to its earlier persecuted status, the religion favored by the Empire. This led to an explosion of growth in membership, and an accompanying explosion of philanthropy toward the Church. This philanthropic activity was unlike anything which had existed previously, both in scope and in character.10 The scale of giving to the Church was so vast that churchmen such as St. Augustine had the enviable problem of having more money than they needed to take care of the poor.11
That wealthy individuals would give food and money to the poor was not unknown in pagan Rome, but these distributions were almost always politically motivated, and they were accompanied by much fanfare and publicity. In pagan Rome, when a wealthy man gave away money he would make sure that everyone knew he was doing it. In that way he would increase his prestige as a “great man.”12 Every great man also had his clients, men of lower socio-economic status who were dependent upon the patron for protection, assistance in obtaining government services, and frequently for sustenance. In turn the client owed the patron his services. These could range from attending him at the Forum to acting as courier to getting out the vote for his patron at election time. The client-patron relationship was hereditary: There was no escape from this subservient status.
Philanthropy in Christian Rome differed in that it no longer had the political aspects, because Christians were expected to remain anonymous. The Fathers took quite literally Christs injunction not to “let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”13 St. Jerome castigated wealthy Christian women who went about distributing alms publicly, telling them not to become boastful in their charity.14