Sunday, September 11, 2005
I don't believe in tough love.
There have been plenty of times when I've heard that bullshit "I'm doing this for your own good" or "I'm doing this because I love you" spoken by the parents of my friends to them right before they got whooped.
There've been plenty of times my whole life when I've come home to find some broken fucked up kid on my couch who doesn't think he can go home and face what's waiting for him there.
I have known my share of fucked up troubled people. I'm related to quite a few. And I've seen a range of responses to the fucked-up trouble--from kicking the kids out and cutting them off to the eternal support in the face of ever-larger crises.
And I know that somewhere there must be people who benefit from tough love. But I've never met them.
That's not to say that I believe in putting up with all manner of bullshit just because you love someone. Sometimes--often, unfortunately--you have to protect yourself from people you love. If that means you've got to cut them out of your life, then you've got to cut them out of your life.
If you can't do anything more for them because you can't bear it, then don't do anything more for them.
But to pretend--no, to fool yourself into thinking--that it's for their own good?
That's bullshit.
Who are you to know what's best for anyone other than yourself? Who are you to presume to know what other people need? And why do you still insist that some other person, who is hurting you, is worth more than you are? That such a person's needs still come before your own?
If you are hurt and scared, why can't you just say "You can't come around here any more because you hurt and scare me."? Why do you have to continue to sublimate yourself to them?
So, let's talk about poor people.
Gods come disguised as them--a one-eyed beggar or a wandering preacher.
Poor people.
We have a superstition in America that says, if you only try hard enough, you can succeed. And just like the fools who pick up pennies thinking it will make them lucky, enough of us are fortunate enough to reinforce the belief in the superstition.
I am successful. I think. I have a roof over my head and food in the fridge and a job I like in a field I love. I'm not making shitloads of money, but I feel like, barring unforeseen events, if I just keep working hard and living frugally, I can reach my modest goal of financial security and home-ownership.
I am not the hardest working person I know. There are a lot of people I know who work a whole lot harder than me who've not gotten the breaks I have. Why am I here, at a computer in a medium sized city on a beautiful sunny Sunday morning with nothing else to do but nurse a hang-over and walk the dog? Why is my best friend from junior high still stuck in that same piddly little town with two kids and a jackass boyfriend?
Do I deserve this life more than she does?
No I don't.
You can't tell by looking at my paycheck or the car I drive or the fancy words I can put on a screen what my value is as a human being. I am not worth more than any of my friends, just because my life turned out like this.
We are each immeasurably beyond worth.
Often, when we talk about what to do about poor people, we operate under the assumption that, by this point in American history, people are poor because they want to be, because they aren't trying very hard to make it. And because they "want" to be poor, they don't deserve anything from us.
For their own good, so that they are forced to rise up out of poverty, we need to stop helping them.
I can't accept that.
I don't believe that anyone knows better than me what I need and I refuse to believe that I know better than another what she needs.
But I also believe it is an affront to do nothing. A grave insult to do nothing.
But to whom?
One could make an argument that it's a grave affront to the Christian god. But how then to motivate non-Christians to help? One could argue that it's insulting to the community that we would turn our backs on other community members. But in a country that believes so strongly in the myth of the individual, how does one even begin to talk about communal responsibility?
I guess one could say that it's a long tradition that richer people take care of poorer people, and not doing so is an affront to tradition, but when so many people in this country think that the types of heterosexual marriages we have right now are in keeping with thousands of years old tradition, it's obvious to me that "tradition" has nothing to do with historical accuracy and everything to do with justifying our discomfort.
And one could say that it's an affront to posterity, that we were so wealthy and hoarded it instead of making things better for our children. But why are future children more important than current children living right now?
And what if conservatives are right and the help isn't really helping, but actually harming people?
Here's where I ended up last night, in this bleak spot. There IS NO REASON to help poor people. There's no one who really matters all that much who is going to hold you accountable for your failure to help. Even if you try to help, you're probably fucking up most of their lives worse.
And if you can live with that, fine. I'm tired of fighting with you. It's obvious to me that my belief--that we have to do whatever we can--is insane. It makes no sense on its surface and it makes no sense after innumerable beers and it makes no sense after laying up all night thinking about it. You all are right. It makes no logical sense to help people who seemingly refuse to help themselves.
But here's the thing. I can't live with that. Because the world does not operate according to logic alone. Often, love interferes and works its madness.
And that's what I choose. Loving madness.
I will reach out and help. I will insist that my government continue to throw money at the problem. I will demand that we continue to do something, even if it's not the right thing, because, if we keep doing what we hope is best, we make room for miracles. We make room for love to work its insanity.
If we do nothing, because that's the only logical response, then there can be no miracles.
And I refuse to accept that.
21 Comments:
This sounds like a faith-based initiative that I can finally get behind.
I will insist that my government continue to throw money at the problem.
This is the only place where you and I differ. The government knows how to spend money on government.
When Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us, he meant us as individuals. Sitting back and demanding money from the government [I'm not saying you personally, but in general] does not absolve us of our individual responsibility to our poor brethren.
I'd rather the government let me keep more of my money so that I can directly minister to the needs of the poor, as is my responsibility.
I am angry that there is this constant belief that The Conservatives don't care about the poor. We do. Many of us are more in the trenches than anyone will ever know. Simply because we see a different solution does not mean that we are ignorant of the problem.
We had quite a lively discussion Chez Transplant last night, among several attorneys and attorney-type wannabes, plus myself. I'm so with you on this. I feel it is only out of luck that I am in a comfortable home with the money to care for my 2 kids and 3 dogs. As a result, I feel an obligation to help people who have been nothing more than LESS lucky than I, and have landed somewhere else. I hold this belief dear: that it is the responsibility of the luckier to hold out a hand for the less lucky to grab. Maybe I'm nuts, maybe I'm not really helping, but when my head hits the pillow, I've been true to myself.
I just don't see how we individually can do as much as we can when we pool our resources. The pooling of resources whether through the government or through charities or through private business is going to be a corrupt process, eventually.
I don't see how defunding one bureaucracy in order to fund another one makes any difference. Especially when the problems facing the poor in this country are so enormous.
Poor people need good schools and jobs and reliable transportation to those jobs and healthcare and shelter and food and fair protection from the police and honest representation in the government.
Who has their finger in all of those pies already? The government. Is the government ideal for the job?
Of course not. But this is what we have. These are the apparatuses that are in place. The problem is always great and always urgent and we should be responding with all the tools we have.
I think what I find confusing about the conservative viewpoint in general (and I'm speaking broadly because, obviously, it's intellectually dishonest to reduce a spectrum of beliefs to one) has to do with the discussion over at your place.
On the one hand, everyone is arguing for individual responsibility--that poor blacks are capable of making their lives better and thus we (Democrats, especially) need to stop encouraging them to see themselves as members of a perpetual victim class. On the other hand, look at how many people were talking about how shitty rap music is and how it encourages sloth and poisons young minds and how rappers are "an embarrassment to their race."
Well, what the fuck? Is everyone an individual who is responsible for his or her own wellbeing and capable of picking him or herself up by her bootstraps? Or are we all easily lead sheep that can be lumped into broad racial categories who must be protected from music that sends the wrong message and public figures (like Jackson or Sharpton) and nefarious liberals who appear all cool but are really racist?
The cognative dissonence between those two often articulated points of view on the right is nearly impossible for me to wrap my head around--one calls for a recognition of an individual's strength and independence and the other utterly negates it.
Obviously, I don't expect you to have an answer for that as you are not the spokesperson for the giant right-wing conspiracy (or whatever), but I'd hope you can appreciate how weird this seems to those of us on the outside.
It's the same way that conservatives say the nastiest shit about people--calling them abominations before god (as we saw in the discussion of gay marriage over at Kleinheider's)--and then complain because liberals are mean to George Bush.
Well, which is it? Are we allowed, in public discussions, to say the cruelest things we can think of to say to each other ("You're going to burn in hell, fag." "Conservatives hate poor people." etc.)? Or do we conduct ourselves with some civility and decorum? Because, again, from my perspective, it feels like conservatives want to have it both ways. They want to be able to say whatever they want and yet not be met with the vitriol and venem we on the left perceive in your comments.
Again, I mean you in a broad sense, not you specifically.
But people tend to treat each other how they are treated (hence the revolution in the Golden Rule) and if the Right feels like they are being constantly met with hostility and distrust, they ought to ask themselves what they're doing to lower the discourse to that level.
Well...
Good questions.
Personally, I favour the individual. You seem to favour the collective.
I have never once said any of the things you mention, nor have I ever tried to conduct myself in a base manner.
Some conservatives do, some liberals do. I prefer to conduct myself as one who respects all people regardless of their opinion and how it jibes with mine. I think it would be nice if everyone did the same thing. Deal with people as people.
I've noticed a lot with the Right this week that there seems to be the mentality among certain people that you can only play ball if you toe the party line in all aspects. Not hanging out on many predominantly left wing sites I can't speak for individuals over there, but I have seen much the same attitude. Sort of this bowing to groupthink. "Oh you think we're in Iraq for a good reason. Then I categorically deny you your right to humanity."
Only it isn't said as prettily.
Why do we have to do everything with HiveMind? Can't it be like this...B & Kat having a conversation from 2 different yet both worthwhile points of view and combining those points of view to offer a solution? Why is it always the Rush Limbaugh Label and Discard way in the current public discourse?
So yeah, some conservatives think one way about poverty. That doesn't mean we all do. That doesn't mean that it's the Official Party Line.
Personally I think everyone is an individual who is LARGELY responsible for his or her wellbeing but can occasionally benefit from the help of others whether financially, educationally, emotionally or spiritually.
I said on my blog that I've been lowerthandirt poor many times in my life. I did a lot to better my circumstance. I also had a lot of help from student loans, financial aid counselors, church members, my parents, siblings, etc. I don't catagorically deny that others need help. I think the problem lays within the shifting operational definitions of 'help'.
And that is why I remain always grateful that you and the Legal Eagle and Sarcastro and the other conservatives who drop by continue to come here and post even though my responses are often "la la la, I can't hear you" and why I was probably harsher to poor Anonymous than I needed to be, but I'm constantly honored and amazed that we can have tough discussions and learn from each other (at least I hope you're learning from me in return) and as much as I like going to websites where my personal beliefs are reaffirmed and all others are dismissed in a snarky manner, I don't know of another place like this, where people from so many backgrounds comment and are commented on.
I don't know why it's working and I don't know for how long it can work, but I really appreciate it and feel protective of it.
And you have me thinking about what I think making meaningful inroads into eliminating poverty would mean. Of course we need better schools, safer schools, with funding books and classroom equipment coming before funding sports. And as much as I believe in public schooling--and I do--I think the crisis in the public schools is so severe that parents should be able to put their kids in whatever school they can. So, yes, I'm for vouchers.
I don't think they're a perfect solution, but the crisis is immediate and a kid in kindergarten today cannot wait for the public schools to fix kindergarten in three years (and so on).
I think people who are able to work should be encouraged to work and that public housing should be integrated (class-wise) single family dwellings (or duplexes) in real neighborhoods and that these homes--good homes--should be made available to poor people through some kind of subsidized loans.
I do think people--rich and poor--appreciate what they have a lot more when they've paid for it and encouraging ownership of property is a great way to make poor people feel invested.
Because I'm not a firm believer in the "free market" (shocking, I know), I believe that the government ought to take steps to keep companies from taking jobs overseas.
One easy way to do this, it seems to me (though I'm sure the WTO would not allow it), is to say that any company that wants to sell goods in the U.S. must pay their workers the U.S. minimum wage. Then there'd be less incentive to take jobs overseas.
I'll wait here for you guys to finish screaming and bashing your heads against the wall... I'm just dreaming, not setting policy here.
As much as I believe isolationism makes for crappy foriegn policy, I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't make for sound fiscal policy.
And I think that de-militarizing the police and reestablishing beat cops who know the people in the neighborhoods they patrol would go along way to de-escalating the tensions between police and young poor men.
Most poor boys are not in gangs and teenaged boys are not our enemies (though, I'm convinced, based on watching them for my whole life that they are pretty much insane from 15-22) and finding ways to keep them out of prison or successfully reintegrating them back into the larger community after prison is crucial.
Part of this means that we have to come up with some better models of masculinity, ones that don't trade solely on a man's ability to be the biggest bad-ass and fucking as many women as he can.
We also have to stop acting like marriage is a quick-fix to all the problems of the poor.
While I'm not about to sit here and tell you that mothers who are married don't have better lives (statistically speaking) than single mothers, I'm utterly unconvinced that it's causal. I don't think getting married automatically means your life will be better, but instead people who are able to forge long lasting commitments probably are able to forge longterm plans in general.
Plus, we cannot overlook, again, the real crisis in masculinity and its effect on women. The Super Genius and I once had a long conversation with a social worker who worked with women in the Robert Taylor homes (good riddance) who said that almost all of the babies she saw from teenage mothers were fathered by adult men and not she's 16/he's 18, but she's 14/he's 25. And he had multiple babies with multiple women. Often she'd been raped by him (more than just in the statutory sense).
Forcing a girl to marry her rapist so that she can get aid is gross. And which girl gets him?
We've got to convince men to behave better and do as much as we can to protect girls.
So, that's my plan. Federal loans for all kinds of shit. Vouchers for schools. Subsidized housing in real neighborhoods with people of more diverse economic backgrounds. Humanizing the police and young men. Protecting kids. Real sex ed that acknowledges that people are going to fuck. Jobs. And feminism for everyone.
Mega-dittoes from Ames, Iowa, Rush.
I gotta back up Kat on this one. Individually, you can make a lot more difference in someone's life than all the collective works of the government.
Here's an example: I once gave a homeless guy a job. I bought him a pair of shoes to wear at said job. I took him back to the shelter each night. The bureaucracy did nothing for him. He was a decent man and a hard worker who needed someone to give him a chance. This isn't about what a wonderful human being I am. I'm not. So let's say someone else helped this guy, it doesn't matter. But if he waited for the social services apparatus to help him, he would still be sitting around the Union Mission without shoes.
As an individual, I can't change the "cultural" issues of teens getting knocked up by thirty year olds, but I can refuse to accept it as the norm. Sometimes telling people that their behavior is unacceptable is for their own good.
As an individual, I can't change the "cultural" issues of teens getting knocked up by thirty year olds, but I can refuse to accept it as the norm. Sometimes telling people that their behavior is unacceptable is for their own good.
That's right, S., feminism for everyone, even you.
Interesting conversation. As a non-conservative, I do have to say that telling people to 'help themselves' when there are HUGE institutional barriers to them doing so is a little bit... shall we say, unrealistic? When you are born in a poor neighbourhood, educated in a bad school, cannot access decent health care, find yourself barred from getting a rob because of the way you speak or the colour of your skin or the neighbourhood you live in... all these factors are outside individual control.
For me, true liberalism is about giving individuals the greatest chance to succeed and attempting to dismantle those structures which get in the way. Some people won't succeed anyway and that's because people aren't perfect. Some people can't succeed -- my own brother is disabled and can't get a job because of that disability. He's very capable but there is systemic and widespread prejudice in our society against people with a disability.
One cannot excuse the ills of society -- and by ills I'm not talking about sex on TV and recreational drug use and teenagers listening to rap music -- by pinning everything on 'the individual'. Those things (teenager sex! oh no!) are distractions from the real and pervasive inequalities in society.
So while I am all for individual responsibility it isn't the be-all and end-all of surviving in the world. I'm not advocating socialism either, rather suggesting that, well, our society (that of the west) makes it easier for some individuals to succeed and harder for others. If we're serious about fulfilling individual potential we have to recognise that and strive to correct it. How?
Well if I knew that I wouldn't be writing on a blog, I'd be getting myself elected to parliament etc.
Okay, rant over. I like the new design, also.
That should be job right there. Whoops
I think it is the other way 'round, Kate. We make it to easier for some people to fail. They aren't expected to succeed. They aren't expected to do much but fail and die young.
Shit, Sarcastro, I was so distracted by your feminist ways that I forgot to make my point and here your next comment brings it into stark relief.
And that is that it isn't all poor people who are dying young. It's not even all poor black people. It's poor black men.
Poor young black men with nothing to do but get in trouble have become the public face of poverty, but that's not actually an accurate representation of who is poor in America.
Most desperately poor people are women and children.
Which is why, though I think your story says something very dear about your character, I don't think it really gets at the larger problem. Individuals can't do enough, though, of course they can do a lot.
Poor mothers rarely end up in shelters. Even if one does and you decide to give her a job--like you did for that guy--who's going to watch her children?
In previous generations, poor people's kids worked along side them.
Now, obviously, I'm not advocating we re-open the mines to the seven year olds. But I'm saying that, even a hundred years ago, a family could pool all its resources and every member could contribute to its welfare. And though I'm much happier with a world in which children do not work, I think we have to be honest about how much of that "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" crap was actually a whole family effort.
That being said, I am reminded that reducing poverty for everyone really hinges on reducing the poverty of women. And much of reducing the poverty of women hinges on them being able to control when they have kids.
The further into your twenties you can get without children, the better your chances for economic stability.
That doesn't mean that a girl who has a kid at 16 can't make it. But it's a lot harder for her than for a 24 year old woman.
And, to your broader point, I'm not sure your story proves me wrong. I said, "If we keep doing what we hope is best, we make room for miracles." You saw that what was being done wasn't good enough and you stepped in and were a miracle for that dude. Isn't that what I was saying?
We've got to keep trying, even failing, so that good things can happen.
And Kat, I forgot to say that of course you're more interested in the individual and I in the community. We leftists didn't come up with socialism by surprise. ;)
For some reason your post reminded me of an old SCTV spoof of "The Miracle Worker" called "Gangway For Miracles", starring Edith Prickley.
More hilarity later.
Oh, sure, I call you a feminist, you start making references to things that were on TV before I was born*. How am I supposed to defend myself against your accusation?
Fine, I'll just have to take your word for it that I, like SCTV, "never pandered to the lowest common denominator; it always respected its audience with intelligent humor". And certainly, with all those midwesterners on the cast, I'm sure we have much in common.
*I was actually alive and have actually seen SCTV in repeats. But I had to take the cheap shot anyway. My apologies.
Aunt B please take the time to read about why I disagree with you and my experience as a poor person.
I had this nebulous Idea of government as the enabler and the underclass as the addict who can't break the cycle of addiciton running through my head but couldn't make it gel into anything coherent. Big props to Glen for making that work.
You know, I keep looking at your post and thinking that you must expect some response from me or you wouldn't have come over here to give me think link and I keep trying to think of what it is that I'm supposed to say in the face of that.
I got nothing.
Let me try this: If you really believe poor people should get no help from the government, then I imagine this past week made you very, very angry.
If you aren't angry that the federal government stepped in to help the people on the Gulf coast, then it must be a strange time for you, trying to reconcile your beliefs that everyone ought to be left to their own devices with your relief at watching the Feds finally arrive.
Whatever you're feeling, the fact that you obviously recognize that I might feel that was a personal attack (or else you wouldn't have tried to mitigate it with your joke) and yet you still came over here to make sure I saw it, is really very strange and a little gross.
Aunt B. I never said that nobody was ever supposed to get govt. aid. You totally didn't understand what I was saying. I really did not mean for you to take offense. I just wanted you to see what I wrote because that was my response to your conversation. What I wrote at the end was not a little joke. I believe that liberals are, for the most part, good people. I just think that big government liberalism helps keep people down. I want to help people, but I want to help them get out of the mess that they are in, not enable them to stay in it. I am sorry that you took offense. I really didn't mean any.
You seem to have a lot of foregone conclusions about what is in my heart and the hearts of people like me. Your conclusions are incorrect though. Get to know some of us. I would like to get to know you, but I get the feeling that you are not interested and would rather I not come back here.
Glen, I'm not going to argue with you or beg you to stay. If you can look through the names of people, even on these comments, and still say that I'm not open to conservative points of view, then I have no answer for you.
If you can't see why I'd interpret your flip dismissal of me--"oh she might be okay, maybe, except that I find her point of view to be offensive and utterly misguided"--as hostile, then again, I have no answer for you.
I really don't have any foregone conclusions about you. I don't know you. All I have to go by is what you wrote and the tone in which it seems you wrote it.
If it seems like we're two people who just are so utterly on different wavelengths and, as such, are prone to misreading each other, then maybe it is for the best that you don't come back here.
I certainly don't wish you ill, but I'm not going to apologize for finding this whole thing inhospitable and decidedly unpleasant, and avoiding such exchanges in the future.
Honestly, that last part was not meant to be offensive. I wrote it for the purpose of letting everyone know that I do not dislike liberals and I think that most of them really are good people. They just have different ideas about helping people than I do. That is what I meant. It wasn't sarcasm, it wasn't a joke. I really didn't think it looked that way. However, it must have and since it did, I am really sorry. I truly apologize.
Although I don't know you, I can tell you are a good person. We just disagree on some things and I am okay with that.
Again, I truly did not mean to offend and I sincerely apologize for doing so.
I would love to come back here and visit some time in the future. I will try to be more tactful in the future.
As an Australian, I get a bit bemused by the terms of this debate. We don't have a huge apparatus of charity to help people, ultimately I think because for most of our history we have been a much poorer society, without many big bumps in wealth to redistribute easily.
What we do have - up until the last twenty years or so - is a historical mythology of community. That has been breaking down, partly because we are absorbing American models, frankly.
In a model of community, a neighbour who can't afford shoes or medicine, or a roof over their head, is an outrage. It should not happen.
At the end of the day, the decision about a personal morality is almost aesthetic. I damn well don't want to live in a world where my neighbour suffers - it simply offends me. To participate in a collective world is a matter of self respect.
In this context, the government is not some alien imposition on society that takes resources and freedom away, it is the embodiment of what we all want, the mechanism by which the common will comes to pass.
I read so many times in American blogs that the government demeans people, and it is better to have charity. Don't you understand how humiliating and patronising charity is?
We are entitled to assistance. We shouldn't have to be "worthy"; we shouldn't be excluded if we are "responsible for our own fates" and "did it to ourselves". Pain is pain, tears are tears, children are children, hope is hope.
In the Great Depression, which hurt our society even more than yours, people stood in lines to get sugar bags of flour, with some tea and jam and tobacco.
Men were forced away from their families to work in bush camps on unemployment relief, their paltry wages given to their wives.
It degraded all of us. The "susso" system was eventually replaced by a paid unemployment benefit.
Among the thousands of gruelling and gripping photographs of New Orleans, one which really stood out for me was just a nondescript corner of a building, which was an emergency clinic.
Two pieces of plywood were nailed to it as a sign. One said: THIS IS NOT CHARITY. The other said: IT'S SOLIDARITY.
Said it all for me.
- barista
ps - I'll put a link to this post on my blog, since it is terrific.
Post a Comment
<< Home