The Recession Spectator
Dependency
The indignity of allowing more government in our lives.
Imagine this: a campaigning lawmaker speaks to a rally and here is what he says: “Vote for me, folks, and I’ll make you dependent! That’s right, my fellow countrymen, you won’t have to do anything more than cast that ballot (ho ho), sit back and relax! My government will step right in to usurp, regulate, or control lots of things you could better do for yourselves! And we’ll do it with your money! There’s nothing in it for me, of course — except maybe a little political power (tee-hee) cause you know I’m a compassionate fellow who’s always looking out for you! But for you, there is the wondrous goal of being helpless supplicants dependent on government — and on me!!”
I don’t suppose we’ll ever hear it put quite that way, but dependence has been proposed and cheered on for many years in different words and under clever slogans such as “New Deal,” “Great Society,” and “Change You Can Believe In.” So let’s ask: What’s so great about dependency? Why the pretense of kindness and compassion to describe the loss of self-reliance, individual initiative, and personal responsibility? Which, by the way, are the characteristics that built America.
General Colin Powell recently said that Americans “want more government in their lives.” Really? Why? Just look at some of the other western democracies that wanted — and got — more government in their lives. The British were once known for independence, self reliance, local responsibility, respect for tradition, and a healthy suspicion of power. Today, notes British writer Theodore Dalrymple, that “sturdy independence has given way to passivity and even resentment” when their various benefits don’t measure up. In Europe such benefits are called “rights” and only start with government run health care, child care, education and housing. They go on to include such perks as guaranteed minimum income, cash payments for each child, and — my favorite — “vacation payments.” No kidding, dependents are assumed to need government assistance to go to the beach! No wonder such payments have brought Sweden’s government spending to 60 percent of GDP. Dalrymple says that the only choices left to dependents like these are “sex and shopping.” In Iraq, people even forgot how to shop for themselves under “Father Saddam’s” dictatorial largess.
The resulting burdens of taxes and regulations are horrible, of course, but the graver cost of such dependency is to the human spirit. Dependent people, notes observer Per Byland, are “utterly incapable of finding value in life.” Sociologist Charles Murray speaks of a life worth living as one of activities involving responsibility, importance, difficulty and consequences. When government makes things too easy, obligation becomes trivial. Why bother?
But what happens when the well runs dry, as it inevitably will; or when government is not there to save you? Those are bad times for haplessly weakened people. One such time for America came in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when a large group of impoverished citizens waited helplessly on an overpass. They waited while local leaders faltered and evacuation plans gathered dust. They waited while the school busses that could have transported them were flooded. They seemed not to understand that if ever there was a time to save themselves, this was it. It tragically looked as though the years of dependency on government had not only stolen their dignity and their capability — it had paralyzed them.
Despite its human cost, the lure of dependence would appear to remain very strong. We have installed a popular administration that promises a new level of dependence for Americans. The new administration’s stimulus bill seeks to undo the positive incentives of the 1996 Welfare Reform law which rewarded states for reducing dependency, and go back to rewarding states for increasing their welfare rolls. This alone is a major setback to which can be added all the other avenues through which this administration and this congress intend to “help” the rest of us toward a state of reliance that they know will weaken us and empower them. Such thinking must — and surely does — imply an assumption of superiority (them) and inferiority (us) that requires one to ignore the fact of America. That is the fact of an extraordinary nation built by ordinary self-reliant individuals.
Lost liberties rarely return. Let’s not fall for servitude.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Manon McKinnon
More Articles From The Recession Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/08/dependency
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Don L| 6.8.09 @ 6:42AM
Dependency upon government should be, like the liberal's view of abportion; a "safe and rare" procedure to help people in those rare times of true need; though Obama's move to take the Charity write-off away is pure evidence that it is not about helping people but in forcing them to become helpless under government control.
Appleby| 6.8.09 @ 7:23AM
Want to see a nearby example of where helpless dependency leads? Look north. Over the weekend I became involved in whats-the-use discussion with a group of people who believe it is their Right to have large families and that I have no business expressing any opinion on the subject -- despite the fact that 46% of my income is extorted for the support of said families -- building more schools, paying more into socialist medicare, widening roads and parking lots for the much larger vehicles (labeled Gas Guzzlers by the same Marching Mommies who demand the right to have 12 children who must be installed in space capsule like protective seating by Federal Law and therefore will require either massive Gas Guzzling vehicles or buses to transport them and their belongings.) By making oneself dependent on extorted funds from your neighbours, you agree to give those neighbours input into what otherwise would be your personal decisions.
Robert Rosencrans| 6.8.09 @ 7:57AM
A couple of days ago, a young person I know expressed mortal anger to me, exclaiming that you couldn't go anywhere without moochers asking you for money anymore. "Why should I have to work," that young person asked me, "when these bums are everywhere, what caused that?" I started by explaining that there are groups in society who for various misguided reasons, actually encourage people not to achieve, just to become complacent. These groups are well intended, but their plans are true evil. I then went on to explain that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
If you look at the unemployment rate, it just crested 9% while the national media tells you "fewer jobs were lost" trying to put a positive spin on it. During the Bush 43 administration the national media would have portrayed that as a disaster, and that's also part of the problem.
That unemployment rate leads to questions. Where are the stimulus jobs? Just this morning Obama promised 600,000 summer jobs. Big whoop. Those tend to be minimum wage and temporary, and they have yet to materialize.
The evidence is mounting that Obama's Big Dig out of your collective pockets isn't working.
News out of Europe within the last few days that citizens there are rejecting socialism. Now, there's an interesting turn of events. This is possibly the one time we should listen to the Europeans.
http://blogsforvictory.com/2009/06/06/europeans-rejecting-socialism/
The economic recession should have meant easy votes for Europe’s left-wing movements, longtime critics of unchecked capitalism.
Yet as Europe goes to the polls, left-leaning parties across the continent are looking likely to falter. That’s true both for those in government, such as in the U.K. and Spain, and in the opposition — such as France, Germany and Italy.
France’s Socialist Party is trying hard to rally voters ahead of Sunday’s European parliamentary elections. “Let’s unite with all the French who contest free market, unfair policies that aim at deregulating everything,” party leader Martine Aubry urged at a pre-election rally.
Yet less than 20% of voters say they plan to cast their ballot for the Socialist Party, according to recent surveys. That would be a weak performance considering France’s main opposition party got 29% of the votes in the last European parliamentary elections.
In Germany, the Social Democrats are expected to get only around 26% on Sunday, consistent with their low opinion-poll ratings ahead of Germany’s national elections in September. Italy’s center-left Partito Democratico is expected to get a similar percentage.
Louis Jenkins| 6.8.09 @ 8:35AM
Love him or hate him, he had government pegged for what it is.
'Here's my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose.' - Ronald Reagan
'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' -Ronald Reagan
'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.' - Ronald Reagan
'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. Was too strong.' - Ronald Reagan
'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.' - Ronald Reagan
'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.' - Ronald Reagan
'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.' - Ronald Reagan
'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program..' - Ronald Reagan
'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.' - Ronald Reagan
'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it.. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it' - Ronald Reagan
'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.' - Ronald Reagan
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.' - Ronald Reagan
'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.' - Ronald Reagan
Anthony| 6.8.09 @ 9:08AM
The Democrat Party has always been the political party that has played and preyed on the peoples's susceptibility to the least common denominator mind set. Always telling the folks, it's never your fault, life's too tough, do what feels good, the game is rigged against you, ect ect, is a winning political dymanic that we conservatives attempt to ward off with tried and true, but seemingly old fashioned and out of date concepts.
It is inevitable that socities, like humans, fall prey to the easy and the facile. Th 19th century concept of rugged individualism seems as antiquated and offensive as Manifest Destiny to our friends on the left. We are deep within this cycle. Only a shock of mega proportion will wake the stupor from our entitled, pampered, fellow citizens. And so the cycle will continue, unless of course, Americans have decided the great experiment has run its course.
Son Of Sam | 6.8.09 @ 10:11AM
There's no such thing as "the government": it's just a bunch of guys who want to spend your money and run your life, then tell you that it's for your own good.
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com
Oldefarte| 6.8.09 @ 11:25AM
Most of you have described this situation more eloquently than I could possibly do, and I'll only add my long life perspective. The liberal policies of government began possibly in the Roosevelt administration; was exploded in the Kennedy/Johnson administrations; and continued/maintained in the Carter and Clinton administrations. These policies are simply liberals' idea of quid-pro-quo; with liberal political leaders giving government benefits to indigent voters, in return for which they receive these voters collective votes. It is a form of disguised SLAVERY, since these policies offer no hope whatsoever of these indigents becoming able to provide for themselves, and demand their dependency on lifelong government financial help. These liberal politicians WANT these indigents to remain inslaved to them/government, so that they/politicians can remain in power. These politicians do not want these indegents to ever better themselves and thereafter become self-sufficient, since, in doing so, these former indigents would no longer need government and therefore would not need these liberal politicical governmental benefits providers. In other words, once a government slave, always a government slave. The only way to break this cycle of dependency is to elect conservative politicians that can actually begin to solve this dependency problem. The most essential element in the solution has to be a strong, superior system of public education [not the current inadequate, teachers' union dominated one]. If indigent students are properly educated, they will thereafter be able to go into the world and earn an adequate income that supports themselves and their families. Additionally, conservative politicians should heavily use the power of government to promote birth control and contraception. With fewer children, indigent mothers can persue professional careers [again in coordination with a superior education system], and their [fewer] children will not become drowned in povertous conditions. Poverty breeds poverty, but this cycle can be broken in time. The only hope for any/all of us that are now involved in this administration's extreme governmental dependency promotion is to vote in upcoming elections for any/all condidates that offer [and pledge to reverse] the current policies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pingback| 6.8.09 @ 12:26PM
The Ultimate Wages of Today’s Collectivism « The Practical Philosopher’s Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Philosopher | 6.8.09 @ 12:29PM
I believe this will be a great learning experience (although negative) and contrast for Americans on the value of our founding on individual liberties vs. collectivism and the eventual tyranny that inevitably follows. It's unfortunate we will have to learn this by experiencing years of diminished quality of life .
Instead of this primitive way of re-learning what works, the American founding values of strong individual liberties, small central government, economic free markets, and the rule of of law need to be taught to a generation of adult citizens and once again be taught to students in school that hope to be productive, functional citizens in the future.
http://pracphilosblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/the-ultimate-wages-of-todays-collectivism/
Nick| 6.8.09 @ 2:11PM
Mr. McKinnon,
Your list of slogans was missing at least one:
"No Child Left Behind"
Old Texican| 6.8.09 @ 2:26PM
Ouch Nick!
But remind me...was "no child left behind" set up as block grants to the several States? Or directly administered by the feds? (those block grants work out pretty good to the responsible States.)
Again, provocative comments , guys.
Dependency has become too widespread in our country, from parents coddling ,(enabling), their idle adult children, to govt. agencies entitling people for the dole.
Scarey, really.
The national REACTION to all of this just might be a LOT of unintended consequences.
Stan Redmon| 6.8.09 @ 3:01PM
Democrats win because what they stand for is nothing and everything at the same time. What they promise is the easiest thing to follow. no morals required, no hard work is needed, and the only fight you have to do are quixotic battles against invisible strawmen (global warming). It's seductive and easy to follow. I myself find it attractive to join the darkside of liberal complacency. But I only need to look at the great number of helpless losers that voted for Obama and realize that's what liberals want for me. Dependency? No thanks.
Nick| 6.8.09 @ 3:15PM
Old Texican,
I agreed with the concept of NCLB, as it was pitched to us during the campaign. Failing schools should not keep getting federal tax dollars.
They shouldn't get any federal dollars at all, but this was a good first attempt at weaning school districts off the federal dole.
But when President Bush let Kennedy write the bill, it was doomed to failure.
Gimmicky slogans like "Compassionate Conservative" and "Prescription Drug Benefit" did not, as we all found out, bode well for conservative ideals and notions of limited government.
Marc Jeric| 6.8.09 @ 3:39PM
We have heard a lot of questions from our marxists (i.e., Democrats) during the Bush years about our "exit strategy" and "definition of the win" in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Isn't six years of war enough to know those answers?
How about "the War on Poverty" declared by our marxists (i.e., Democrats) some 44 years ago? What is the definition of "victory" there? What is our "exit strategy"? I can provide these answers - you see I lived under communism:
1) Perpetual communist government elected with 99.95% vote (there are no competing parties - they are all killed or in Gulag);
2) All population works for one single employer - government; everything is nationalized;
3) everybody is member of a single union of government employees, led by communist goons.
4) all lazy bums are working in the Gulag (unemployment is a perpetual 0%).
Old Texican| 6.8.09 @ 5:24PM
Marc
Thank you for being straight-forward.
Welcome to America.
We free men and women will get it back, or die.
We do outnumber the bastards, and insurgencies need a 5 to 1 ratio of oppressors to insurgents to keep control...each day.
Best regards
Richard Baker| 6.8.09 @ 8:17PM
Dependency =Slavery
Independence=Freedom
Are there any questions?
Copper Castings | 6.9.09 @ 1:47AM
Aluminum Castings , Iron Castings
PolishKnight| 6.9.09 @ 2:56PM
Democrat/marxist strategy can be summed up as the following: Appeal to greed and even the theivery impulse in people while also catering to their smug side that they're better than others and the rules they apply to others don't apply to them. I'm a caring person so it's ok to beat other people up since they're not caring otherwise they would want me to be happy beating them up. It's the mindset of a 1 month old baby.
On the other hand, especially for the targets of such "empathic" liberals who brag about castrating their political opponents (literally), they have to sell their agenda to the few foolish white male liberals left (they comprise just a 33% that haven't woken up yet) and that is a combination of white guilt and superiority and outright lies such as health care under communism will be more efficient than not. That a big benevolent dictator will wash away the ineffeciencies of capitalism and wealthy CEO's.
80's Child| 6.10.09 @ 12:41AM
Was that a picture of Reagan in the lead in? God, remember when we had a bonafide retard as president? That was fun stuff, wasn't it?
Siman| 9.5.09 @ 9:21PM
sexy lingerie
Qiul| 11.19.09 @ 2:10AM
Video Cutter|iTouch Converter for Mac
Technology | 3.24.10 @ 8:37AM
Dependency upon government should be, like the liberal's view of abportion; a "safe and rare" procedure to help people in those rare times of true need; though Obama's move to take the Charity write-off away is pure evidence that it is not about helping people but in forcing them to become helpless under government control.
Vf551xvt | 6.25.10 @ 4:24AM
Reliance is never good, thanks for this honest article. Some people may not like the truth, but it must be told.