On Poverty: A response in two parts
My friend Bill would say the following falls under the "Third Man In Rule," but this a subject near and dear.
I don't know Joey deVilla, but I know his blog persona. So when he posts that he has read an "interesting piece" by Kathy Shaidle I trust his judgment and go take a look.
Well, said piece was in response to another blogger's entry. So I first read Answering the Right: I. Children by Timothy Huegerich. You'll notice this is on a site called "Catholics for Dean." The "interesting piece" is on a site called "++ relapsed catholic ++ religion blog."
Oops. I might have stumbled into a religious war. No, matter. I have the credentials: alter boy groomed for priesthood, only to stray from the path.
"That was so long ago," I hear my inner critic say. I counter, "my advanced age is a good thing.” Shaidle makes fine use of ad hominem attack to counter Huegerich's points. She points out (more than once) that Huegerich is a "21 Year Old Philosophy Major." The message is that he couldn't have the experience or education to understand "living in poverty."
Ah, I am older and educated in much more than philosophy. But I chose to read on anyway.
Shaidle opines that she and Huegerich couldn't agree on the term "living in poverty." She offers a fine quote about how income alone shouldn't define poverty. She doesn't mention that she is quoting a report from a well-known conservative think-tank. You see, not everyone believes the Fraser Institute is without a hidden agenda.
"But," that critic reminds me, "everyone has an agenda." True, and it helps to know where Shaidle gets her facts. After all, if you can't trust the base facts of one's argument should you trust the conclusions?
Shaidle uses conservative rhetoric, but does she make her point? Is her point is that she and Huegerich (and by proxy this writer) can't agree where to set the poverty line and can't agree how many children live in poverty.
I can accept that we wouldn’t agree on a number. I'd still ask Shaidle -- "Do you believe anyone in the United States or Canada lives in poverty? Are any of those people children?"
As for me I'm not looking for a line. I honestly don't think it makes a difference how many live in poverty. If the number is greater than 1 then we can agree there is poverty.
I think therefore we could agree that is a "problem." After all, couldn't we agree poverty is something we could eliminate? I think so. Does Shaidle?
Or does she believe it something the poor bring upon themselves?
Shaidle seems to argue that is the case: "But our fallen human nature means that while you may be (and obviously are) a driven and determined young man, not everyone of your fellow citizens is so inclined."
We then get to read how she knows the poor are scamming the taxpayers. She sees satellite dishes on window sills in low-income housing. Her argument is that she doesn't have a satellite dish and some "poor" people do. Therefore, they can't be "poor." That's a non sequitur argument if you're keeping score. But it sounds good and it causes tongues to wag, "They should live in hovels as is their station and be happy with the government cheese we give them."
But I'm putting words in the mouths of compassionate conservatives. Let's stick with the argument given thus far: there is no poverty problem because the Fraser Institute says so and because "poor" people aren't living in squalor.
How you'll view that may depend on which side of the fence you fall. You may believe a person makes it entirely on his or her own or you could argue that society has a responsibility to help those with the least.
I think it is clear we're on opposite sides of that fence.
Shaidle then has a lot to say about emergency room use. "Tellingly, the (tv-free) local emergency rooms are only empty when there is a Leafs game on, or when the OJ Simpson verdict was being announced. As if by magic, nobody was really that sick during those times!"
My mind reels. Could Shaidle be saying….? Maybe I'm not reading her words correctly. She has to have some other agenda. Why lump together emergency room use and a segment of the population? A segment that would have a vested interest in the Simpson trial?
I think it is obvious. She is against American football fans and sports fans in general.
That nagging internal critic read her quote as saying that Blacks fill those emergency rooms. I thought we were talking about the poor? Why did she play the race card?
Could it be that her audience is primarily other "compassionate conservatives?" The ones in my neck of the woods are by far a "lilly white" group and they are quick to inform me that "the poor" are those "brown people." Lots of quotes around those terms because I believe her argument and such terms are examples of logical fallacy -- ad populum this time.
I've been dealing with these arguments for 40 plus years: the goal is usually to let the local whites know they are better than the local browns. If you drive wedges between the races of the poorer economic classes they won’t spend the time organizing after they realize they’re the "have not" majority in a world run by the "have" minority.
If you missed that Shaidle was talking about race then she makes sure you understand that poverty is often the result of the racial gap in learning. At least that is part of her argument. It gets twisted here. Poverty exists because parents don't care? Or because the students don't care? Shaidle argues both. "Without values being taught at home, without discipline being taught in school (instead of ‘self esteem’ and ‘being nice’ and ‘not being judgmental’) the finest education will still mean some losers become losers a little bit faster, due to their own misguided personal decisions."
Ah, so you're born a loser; no matter how great your "education." Let's make sure we don't have poverty. We could just send off all 6year-olds to military schools. They'll get all the values and discipline they need. Poverty will disappear in a generation. And if a "loser" strays send him off to war.
Stop laughing. That isn't nice.
Shaidle makes this statement: "In Canada, the poor have pretty much everything they need, and then some (like legal representation, job training, low cost housing)."
So, only the rich need legal representation, job training, and low cost housing?
She doesn't answer but continues, "And they are still around. The only conclusion any thinking, mature person with some real life experience can draw is that inner resources, not outer ones, can contribute in no small way to poverty. "
So, if you don't agree with Shaidle you're immature and have no real-life experience?
Still though, part of the sentence is true (let me paraphrase): "Inner resources can contribute to poverty." I can agree with that in some cases. But she ruins her argument by eliminating the converse (again paraphrased): "Outer influences do not contribute to poverty."
Really? What mature person with any understanding of the world would spout such claptrap?
Oops. Sorry to sound like a compassionate conservative there.
I am willing to bet Shaidle believes with all her heart that her own hard work got her out of her poverty. I congratulate her on that achievement. It seems that she also believes those who didn't make it are somehow inferior in heart or soul.
I, a mature person with much real life experience, know that is simply not true.
I believe that all people are born with hearts and souls that can soar. I do not subscribe to Shaidle's belief that "People will fall to their lowest level when given the chance, because at heart we are all lazy procrastinators who do not think past next week."
“Speak for yourself Shaidle,” one may protest.
Wait though, Shaidle continues, "We should discourage such thinking, rather than encourage it."
That's why I'm writing today. I don't agree with Shaidle and I'm saying so from my bully pulpit. I hope someday she'll also refrain from such thinking.
Tomorrow we'll discuss insurance....
