Does anyone dispute that a major driver of poverty is fatherlessness? It seems clearly to contribute to poverty in childhood for those lacking a father and to make emergence from poverty less likely when those children turn into adults. (See here, here, here, and here for a start on the evidence.) And does anyone dispute that the prevalence of fatherlessness continues to grow? Unless there's some factual dispute about the extent and effect of fatherlessness of which I'm not aware, this seems like it should be a huge issue for anyone concerned about poverty. Yet it is virtually ignored by liberalism and the traditional "war on poverty." In fact, some would argue that the growing welfare state, far from addressing the problem, has exacerbated it.
Jonah Goldberg resurfaces the issue in a recent column and urges President Obama to challenge young men - especially young black men - to do something about this problem. At the very least, given his unique standing as (a) president, (b) a Democrat, (c) a black man, and (d) seemingly a devoted father, he could legitimize and depoliticize a national discussion of the issue. This seems like common sense to me.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Paul Ryan on Poverty
The media caricature of Paul Ryan is of a heartless Ayn Rand disciple, looking to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. Whether the famed "Ryan Budget" is sufficiently compassionate and whether its projections are sound are matters for another day. What I'd like to point out is that he apparently fought hard to make poverty and income mobility significant issues in the 2012 Romney-Ryan campaign, finally convincing the Romney people to let him do so in a speech at Cleveland State University on October 24.
Ryan's speech is approvingly summarized by David Azerrad in a post on the Heritage Foundations's Foundry blog. As Azerrad notes, Ryan did not deny the enormous problems posed by poverty and the enormous obstacles that poor people face. Instead, he laid out his aspiration that the American Dream be accessible to all children, no matter their backgrounds, and attempted to explain how conservative, smaller government makes that goal more achievable than the big government solutions that have failed us for 50 years.
Samuel Gregg, posting on National Review Online, was a fan, but the speech didn't win a lot of converts on the left. In my view, those on the left refuse to engage the foundations of Ryan's arguments. They assume that advocating smaller government programs is automatically heartless, and they focus on income inequality (and failure to redistribute) rather than socioeconomic mobility. Of course Paul Ryan is heartless if the measure of heart is belief in big government programs. But what if he's right that the war of poverty is already a proven failure? Doesn't that require some reexamination of the traditional "war on poverty"? At the very least, shouldn't his arguments be addressed rather than skirted?
Ryan's speech is approvingly summarized by David Azerrad in a post on the Heritage Foundations's Foundry blog. As Azerrad notes, Ryan did not deny the enormous problems posed by poverty and the enormous obstacles that poor people face. Instead, he laid out his aspiration that the American Dream be accessible to all children, no matter their backgrounds, and attempted to explain how conservative, smaller government makes that goal more achievable than the big government solutions that have failed us for 50 years.
- Ryan on the big government approach: “With a few exceptions, government’s approach has been to spend lots of money on centralized, bureaucratic, top-down anti-poverty programs. The mindset behind this approach is that a nation should measure compassion by the size of the federal government and how much it spends."
- Ryan on his own approach: "Well, to hear some tell it, we think everybody should just fend for themselves. But that’s just a false argument—a straw man set up to avoid genuine debate.… I believe in true compassion and upward mobility.”
- He also made some interesting observations about civil society as a partial substitute for government. Look for more blog posts on that theme in this space in the future.
Samuel Gregg, posting on National Review Online, was a fan, but the speech didn't win a lot of converts on the left. In my view, those on the left refuse to engage the foundations of Ryan's arguments. They assume that advocating smaller government programs is automatically heartless, and they focus on income inequality (and failure to redistribute) rather than socioeconomic mobility. Of course Paul Ryan is heartless if the measure of heart is belief in big government programs. But what if he's right that the war of poverty is already a proven failure? Doesn't that require some reexamination of the traditional "war on poverty"? At the very least, shouldn't his arguments be addressed rather than skirted?
About this blog and me
This blog
This blog is intended to promote discussion and understanding of a topic I believe to be widely neglected and often misunderstood - the perspective of the American conservative movement on what to do about poverty and the poor. I think it is fair to say that Americans of all political stripes commonly believe that liberals have a far-reaching agenda with respect to poverty, while conservatives have almost no "agenda" in this area. I think this understates the conservative perspective.
Some conservatives have a real interest in poverty, but believe simply that free markets and individual liberty (a) best promote economic and social mobility, and (b) present the least risk of the entitlement and dependency culture created by liberals' "war on poverty." Since free markets and individual liberty already represent the mainstream conservative policy-making wish list, no additional program for the poor is needed. Other conservatives, perhaps most famously Jack Kemp, call for a more active approach to addressing poverty, one that would use governmental powers to promote economic activity and advancement in poor areas. More libertarian conservatives probably have no real interest in poverty, at least to the extent it is argued to lay claim to certain government policy initiatives. (These "conservatives" - and the purest libertarians would object to that label - probably earn the reputation for indifference to poverty, at least from a public policy perspective.)
One of the motivations for this blog is to explore these perspectives and hopefully others coming from the right. I will not spend much space exploring the liberal approach to poverty, on the assumption that it's already getting lots of exposure in the media, the academy, and elsewhere. I will do my best to include some liberal counterarguments to the conservative perspectives I post here.
Your Humble Blogger
I'm posting anonymously, so that I can also post frankly, without concern for the impact my views might have on my career, my friendships, and even my family relationships. I really don't think any of my views should offend anyone. But poverty is a sensitive topic, and it often touches on race, which is even more sensitive. I'll revisit my preference for anonymity occasionally, but for now, it seems the way to go.
Having said that, anyone reading this may be entitled to an understanding of who's writing. So, let me deliver some background on my perspective here:
This blog is intended to promote discussion and understanding of a topic I believe to be widely neglected and often misunderstood - the perspective of the American conservative movement on what to do about poverty and the poor. I think it is fair to say that Americans of all political stripes commonly believe that liberals have a far-reaching agenda with respect to poverty, while conservatives have almost no "agenda" in this area. I think this understates the conservative perspective.
Some conservatives have a real interest in poverty, but believe simply that free markets and individual liberty (a) best promote economic and social mobility, and (b) present the least risk of the entitlement and dependency culture created by liberals' "war on poverty." Since free markets and individual liberty already represent the mainstream conservative policy-making wish list, no additional program for the poor is needed. Other conservatives, perhaps most famously Jack Kemp, call for a more active approach to addressing poverty, one that would use governmental powers to promote economic activity and advancement in poor areas. More libertarian conservatives probably have no real interest in poverty, at least to the extent it is argued to lay claim to certain government policy initiatives. (These "conservatives" - and the purest libertarians would object to that label - probably earn the reputation for indifference to poverty, at least from a public policy perspective.)
One of the motivations for this blog is to explore these perspectives and hopefully others coming from the right. I will not spend much space exploring the liberal approach to poverty, on the assumption that it's already getting lots of exposure in the media, the academy, and elsewhere. I will do my best to include some liberal counterarguments to the conservative perspectives I post here.
Your Humble Blogger
I'm posting anonymously, so that I can also post frankly, without concern for the impact my views might have on my career, my friendships, and even my family relationships. I really don't think any of my views should offend anyone. But poverty is a sensitive topic, and it often touches on race, which is even more sensitive. I'll revisit my preference for anonymity occasionally, but for now, it seems the way to go.
Having said that, anyone reading this may be entitled to an understanding of who's writing. So, let me deliver some background on my perspective here:
- I'm a lifelong conservative who has historically leaned to the libertarian end of the conservative movement.
- I'm also a lifelong Roman Catholic who has taken more and more of an interest in the Church's teachings on poverty and social justice as I've grown older.
- I'm in my mid-30s and have practiced law (mostly labor and employment law) in the Philadelphia area for over 10 years.
- I'm married with three kids.
- While I've come to reconsider my libertarian bent as I've gotten older and now think the government has an obligation to address the needs of its most vulnerable citizens (including the poor), I continue to believe that the liberal "war on poverty" has been a complete disaster for the poor. I have a passion for history and frequently look at public policy with an eye on history, rather than theory. In my view, the liberal program has a clear record of reducing economic and social mobility; creating a culture of dependence, entitlement, and victimization; and bringing our country to the brink of insolvency. I'd rather not double down on a failing approach.
- I believe that a smart approach to the problem of poverty must be judged prospectively by its likely results (again, using history as a guide) and retrospectively by its actual results, not by its motives. A program that improves the plight of the poor accidentally is better than a well-intentioned program that helps no one.
- I'm not particularly interested in income inequality. A program that improves the plight of the poor by 50% but increases income inequality is better than one that improves their plight by 10% but reduces income inequality.
- I believe that a morally sound approach to the problem of poverty must have the purpose of getting people out of poverty, not creating a permanent voting bloc. While this is not a failing in my many liberal friends, I do think it's a huge failing in the politicians for whom they vote.
- I believe that, regardless of government policy, each individual has a moral obligation to help the poor. How that obligation plays into voting and advocacy is a thornier issue that I'd like to explore here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)