Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wrote a column about the need for empathy in America. In his view, the problems of poverty are severe and hit children disproportionately, so we all must care more about the problem. In his view, those who see so called poverty programs as not productive are social darwinists. In Kristof's view, those who oppose the current anti-poverty agenda want only the strong to survive, whether or not the anti-poverty programs actually work.
This is yet another example of a leftist who perverts the debate so that the real issues are not considered. The debate is not a question of whether or not we should help poor children. There must be people opposed to doing so, but they are a tiny minority whose voices are rarely heard. The actual debate, the one that Kristof seeks to suppress, is HOW do we best help poor children. I have been writing about conservative anti-poverty proposals for a while now, and Kristof does not want to have to deal with issues like those. (No, I am not suggesting that Kristof has to answer my blog, so no need for those email, please.)
Ask yourself this question: What behavior is encouraged when the state provides increased payments to a poor drug addicted woman each time she has a child? The answer is obvious; we get what we pay for, another child. But these are children born to mothers who are incapable of caring for them. They are refugees at birth, devoid of good homes, good care, and most prospects for a successful life. Kristof argues that empathy requires us to provide even more for these children and their mothers, but his appeal is nothing except pure emotion. Does it make sense for us to increase the policy that helps cause the problem, or should we perhaps look for another solution, one that would lessen the cause of the problem rather than promoting it?
The distortion of the issues has allowed the left to control the debate for many decades. Too many conservatives have hidden from this debate, afraid that they might be called heartless or uncaring. The result has been a "War on Poverty" which after the expenditure of literally trillions of dollars has left us with a society with more people in poverty than was the case when Lyndon Johnson first declared that so called war. The anti-poverty programs of the left have not worked. The data is all there. It's time for a change in strategy.
This is yet another example of a leftist who perverts the debate so that the real issues are not considered. The debate is not a question of whether or not we should help poor children. There must be people opposed to doing so, but they are a tiny minority whose voices are rarely heard. The actual debate, the one that Kristof seeks to suppress, is HOW do we best help poor children. I have been writing about conservative anti-poverty proposals for a while now, and Kristof does not want to have to deal with issues like those. (No, I am not suggesting that Kristof has to answer my blog, so no need for those email, please.)
Ask yourself this question: What behavior is encouraged when the state provides increased payments to a poor drug addicted woman each time she has a child? The answer is obvious; we get what we pay for, another child. But these are children born to mothers who are incapable of caring for them. They are refugees at birth, devoid of good homes, good care, and most prospects for a successful life. Kristof argues that empathy requires us to provide even more for these children and their mothers, but his appeal is nothing except pure emotion. Does it make sense for us to increase the policy that helps cause the problem, or should we perhaps look for another solution, one that would lessen the cause of the problem rather than promoting it?
The distortion of the issues has allowed the left to control the debate for many decades. Too many conservatives have hidden from this debate, afraid that they might be called heartless or uncaring. The result has been a "War on Poverty" which after the expenditure of literally trillions of dollars has left us with a society with more people in poverty than was the case when Lyndon Johnson first declared that so called war. The anti-poverty programs of the left have not worked. The data is all there. It's time for a change in strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment