Sunday, January 24, 2010

An Example of How Not to Begin a Potentially Interesting Discussion

Leave it to a member of the GOP to screw up a potentially interesting discussion. South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer raised some interesting points in a speech he gave the other day. In discussing the need to require people who received government assistance to do things in order to receive that assistance, Bauer had to go there and compare welfare recipients with animals, and stray animals to boot.

I think that it is worthwhile to have a discussion related to things like required parental participation in their children's education, if their children receive government assistance. We know that a key to breaking the cycle of poverty is through education, and I would hope that the vast majority of parents receiving public assistance would want to see their children progress. Though I am not as draconian as Bauer, I do think that there should be certain requirements and penalties in place for people to receive government assistance (with the exception of the elderly).

But, what on earth was the purpose of comparing welfare recipients with stray animals? That is the easiest way to lose people. To me, it shows that Bauer is comfortable in thinking that he is better than welfare recipients, which is not the case at all. That is how you put a discussion of value on lock down before the discussion has really even begun.

If Bauer wants to have this discussion, I think that he needs to reassess his thoughts about welfare recipients, apologize with sincerity, and then start over again. Give the people he criticized in such a condescending manner the respect that they deserve as human beings. Once he begins there, then perhaps people who would dismiss him solely on his "stray animal" comment might be willing to listen to an interesting proposal.

2 comments:

Scott said...

Bauer has the hard-right mindset that believes that when people in America do not succeed and prosper, it is their own fault. This country offers such opportunity that for anyone to be poor is a sign of laziness or "animal like" stupidity.

They are encouraged in this belief by the fact that there are many examples of lazy, stupid poor people to make them feel the generalization is justified.

Conservatives also believe that people who prosper in America do so because they have the opposite qualities--they are hardworking and smart. And there are many examples of hardworking, smart people make them feel that generalization is justified.

People like Bauer do not see the fact that the largest portion of accumulated of wealth in America is in the hands of people who inherited it. They see the up-by-the-bootstraps stories like Bill Cosby. They don't see the everything-handed-to-him stories like George W. Bush.(See Paul Krugman,
The Death of Horatio Alger)

It is that mindset that allows someone to equate government assistance to "feeding stray animals." It is also the mindset that allows someone to say--with absolutely no self-awareness-- something like this-
"Anybody help me out? NO!"

hscfree said...

I have a few friends who have made it clear that some of the New Deal and Great Society programs have essentially rendered the poor lazy, that they have come to embrace the handout. It's like the mom in the movie "Precious." The problem that I have with characterizations like that is that they castigate all poor people. Sure there are a few poor people running game on the welfare state. But there are a few rich people running game on the American economy. Why do we throw the full weight of our ire on one and not the other?

Bauer would never use a similar analogy to talk about the Wall Street banks, but I doubt that the amount of money the poor has received from the American public over time really equates to what Wall Street has received during the same period. I wish I could find statistical data on the amount of money that has been doled out to the poor versus the amount of money that has been doled out to corporations through corporate welfare programs.

I suppose an argument can be made that the corporate welfare recipients have the power to create jobs. And that is true, but I also think that an argument can be made about the importance of providing a safety net for the least among us.

I actually think that we should have a discussion about requirements for some of the benefits provided by the state. I actually think that clever ways of ensuring parental participation in their children's education through benefits is worth discussing. But to compare these folks with animals is disgusting.