Oftentimes, liberals will offer you big government as the solution to a problem. On the other hand, conservatives will assert that less—much less—government is the sure fix. Ronald Reagan would have had you believe that government is inherently evil, that government is itself the problem. But neither of these approaches have solved much: witness LBJ's Great Society and Reagan's social welfare cuts. America didn't destroy poverty in the '60s, nor did less government in the '80s cause us all to develop better morals. So what is government's role in solving the socioeconomic problems, and even crises, facing America? And yes, we do have crises. What is happening in the majority-black, crack-ridden inner city? There's a war going on, and most of America doesn't care. The Katrina victims haven't been properly recompensed, haven't had their homes, their communities, their cities rebuilt. And the working middle class is being ravaged. Jobs are leaving, homes are foreclosing, and a way of life is being torn asunder in a silent, faceless genocide.
Well let me tell you what's what: it is not the government's job to funnel billions into a new program, staffed by more out-of-touch, hapless bureaucrats. But neither can the government—and the country it serves—preside idly over humanitarian and economic crises. We do not have the option to do nothing—for we would become monsters, desensitized to any suffering. Nevertheless, I can understand someone who is hesitant about the government going out and trying to “fix the ghetto.” Those that are hesitant about such things are not hesitant because they believe those who live in the inner city deserve an opportunity-less, fearful existence. They’re hesitant because although we’ve tried, we haven’t succeeded, and we’ve run out of ideas besides pumping more money in, money without any organization or resolve behind it. We must regain the people’s trust in spending their money, and we must do this by spending it wisely and effectively. We don’t need a federally-administered “War on Poverty,” nor do we need money taken away from such vital institutions like insane asylums, Social Security, or Medicare. Government is not the solution—people are. But the destruction of communities because of disappearing jobs and foreclosed homes cannot be solved by good intentions alone. The cycles of poverty, addiction, recession, and bankruptcy are indeed vicious, and they are also often strong and seemingly endless. These things cannot be fought just by nice thoughts if we intend to succeed on a broad scale. There must be force behind effort, not just willpower on the part of a few, but conviction and action by the many. This is a sentiment Sen. Barack Obama has been emphasizing during his campaign. This action will not succeed if not taken up collectively.
What I’m saying in short, is that the most effective ways to deal with poverty, declining economic opportunity, and community rebuilding originate from within the community. And the most efficient way of administering these solutions is by and through the community. But one of the unfortunate parts of this approach is that community programs often lack breadth, their ability to reach many, because they lack that one important resource that frequently determines whether a program will last or perish—money. And that is where we need great politico-economic innovation: combining the fantastic depth and effectiveness of community programs with the more-encompassing breadth and monetary resources of a federal or even state program.
Governments must cease to be a bureaucratic parasite that takes large percentages of our income and then swallows it up to be wasted, misappropriated, and disappear into ineffective committees and useless federal oversight programs. Instead, government must be a tool that like-minded individuals can use to confront—and defeat—a problem bigger than themselves.
Comments are closed for this post.
