-
The Loss of Trust
June 18, 2013 | 32 comments
-
Sex and the Military
June 12, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Economics vs. ‘Need’
June 11, 2013 | 29 comments
-
Historic Rescuers
June 5, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Abstract Immigrants
June 4, 2013 | 31 comments
The Public Policy
Depending on Dependency
The left is big on “compassion,” its code word for vote buying.
The theme that most seemed to rouse the enthusiasm of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was that we are all responsible for one another — and that Republicans don’t want to help the poor, the sick and the helpless.
All of us should be on guard against beliefs that flatter ourselves. At the very least, we should check such beliefs against facts.
Yet the notion that people who prefer economic decisions to be made by individuals in the market are not as compassionate as people who prefer those decisions to be made collectively by politicians is seldom even thought of as a belief that should be checked against facts.
Nor is this notion confined to Democrats in America today. Belief in the superior compassion of the political left is a worldwide phenomenon that goes back at least as far as the 18th century. But in all that time, and in all those places, there has been little, if any, effort on the left to check this crucial assumption against facts.
When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities.
Conservatives also donated more of their time to philanthropic activities and donated far more blood than liberals. What is most remarkable about this study are not just its results. What is even more remarkable is how long it took before anyone even bothered to ask the questions. It was just assumed, for centuries, that the left was more compassionate.
Ronald Reagan donated a higher percentage of his income to charitable activities than did either Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ted Kennedy. Being willing to donate the taxpayers’ money is not the same as being willing to put your own money where your mouth is.
Milton Friedman pointed out that the heyday of free market capitalism in the 19th century was a period of an unprecedented rise in philanthropic activity. Going even further back in time, in the 18th century Adam Smith, the patron saint of free market economics, was discovered from records examined after his death to have privately made large charitable donations, far beyond what might have been expected from someone of his income level.
Helping those who have been struck by unforeseeable misfortunes is fundamentally different from making dependency a way of life.
Although the big word on the left is “compassion,” the big agenda on the left is dependency. The more people who are dependent on government handouts, the more votes the left can depend on for an ever-expanding welfare state.
Optimistic Republicans who say that widespread unemployment and record numbers of people on food stamps hurt President Obama’s reelection chances are overlooking the fact that people who are dependent on government are more likely to vote for politicians who are giving them handouts.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that, back during the Great Depression of the 1930s. He was reelected in a landslide after his first term, during which unemployment was in double digits every single month, and in some months was over 20 percent.
The time is long overdue for optimistic Republicans to understand what FDR understood long ago, and what Barack Obama clearly understands today. Dependency pays off in votes — unless somebody alerts the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill.
The Obama administration is shamelessly advertising in the media — whether on billboards or on television — for people to get on food stamps. Welfare state bureaucrats have been sent into supermarkets to tell shoppers that food stamps are available.
The intelligentsia have for decades been promoting the idea that there should be no stigma to accepting government handouts. Living off the taxpayers is portrayed as a “right” or — more ponderously — as part of a “social contract.”
You may not recall signing any such contract, but it sounds poetic and high-toned. Moreover, it wins votes among the gullible, and that is the bottom line for welfare state politicians.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Thomas Sowell
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/12/depending-on-dependency
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
Darin| 9.12.12 @ 7:00AM
The truth is that handouts are demeaning and dehumanizing. When there is no longer an attitude of shame in having to receive handouts to support your family, we have gone from a nation of men to a nation of sheep. Liberals want us to be a nation of sheep because sheep require a shephard, and liberals have appointed themselves as shephard.
The Avenger| 9.12.12 @ 10:25AM
Bravo, well said.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.12.12 @ 1:11PM
If you end the Welfare State, really pare it down, the funds will be put into "Defense" (offense).
IMO win-win situations don't exist: it is in fact guns v. butter and always has been.
JD| 9.12.12 @ 2:46PM
Wow. That's a new one.
We need the social welfare state to bankrupt us specifically to prevent us from being overly militaristic?
Albertus Magnus| 9.12.12 @ 4:18PM
Did you expect logic from Brooks the Obama Brownoser?
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.12.12 @ 4:26PM
"We need the social welfare state to bankrupt us specifically to prevent us from being overly militaristic?"
No, you need to dole funds out to buy loyalty for the war effort-- as FDR and LBJ did.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.12.12 @ 4:29PM
and it doesn't mean you have to go bankrupt, you as a debtor are then owned by China and other debt-ees.
We haven't been sovereign for a decade.
JD| 9.12.12 @ 5:10PM
The doling out of funds to buy loyalty has rarely been about war efforts, unless "war" is your metaphor for winning elections.
Aristocat| 9.12.12 @ 7:02AM
All give-away programs should be voluntary, to be administered by churches using donations.
This includes Food Stamps, education, Medicaid,
Disability, etc. That way the giver gets credit for it and the receiver is grateful to the donor. No one is "entitled" to charitable programs.
Social Security and Medicare are contractual and not give-away programs. They should be taken out of the budget and administered as separate,
self-sustaining programs.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.12.12 @ 1:15PM
"Social Security and Medicare are contractual and not give-away programs. They should be taken out of the budget and administered as separate, self-sustaining programs."
But Social Security and Medicare are the substance of the Welfare State, you are writing about cutting back on the tusks but leaving the elephant. No easy way out. None.
It means people will die, always has been that way.
Von Mises Jr| 9.12.12 @ 7:04AM
Tradition has taught through proverbs and aphorisms for those listening. We all know the proverb "give a man a fish; you feed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime."
We do this with our children. We pay for their education so that they can get the best job possible. We do not expect them to marry and have children so that we can support and raise them all. We expect them to do better than we did with our initial help, but then succeed on their own.
Our politicians even understand this on a gut level. In Yellowstone, they post signs "do not feed the wild animals." They know if fed that they will learn to frequent the roadsides causing accidents and attacks.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.12.12 @ 9:06AM
“They know if fed that they will learn to frequent the roadsides causing accidents and attacks.”
Additionally, those fed at the side of the road either do not develop or fail to hone their abilities to feed themselves when the tourist season ends. As I have noted during the more than a quarter century in criminal justice, many in the population that we regularly interact with are not in need of rehabilitation, but rather habilitation.
Von Mises Jr| 9.12.12 @ 10:56AM
One dumb ass woman on the NY, NJ & PA border was feeding the bears. They started breaking into her house. They probably had to shoot the bears.
At least the bears get three strikes and your out. Two tags and relocations, and then........
benny havens| 9.12.12 @ 7:38AM
The entire campaign of President Goodie Bag is centered on giveaways for one reason, to get votes. And 50% of the electorate is falling for it.
Cobalt| 9.12.12 @ 7:40AM
"give a man a fish; you feed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime."
or
....give a man an EBT card, and you have his vote for a lifetime.
They need to post some of those "do not feed the wild animals" signs in our cities.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.12.12 @ 9:22PM
"give a man an EBT card, and you have his vote for a lifetime"
Only if you remove those barriers to voting such as prohibiting the franchise to felons or requiring a photo ID.
c. j. acworth| 9.12.12 @ 8:08AM
Of course, the liberal response to the fact that conservatives give more to charity is to say, "Well, they have to don't they? Everyone wants to go to Heaven, so conservatives have to donate money to make up for their lack of compassion. Liberals are all assured a place in Glory, so we can just talk about compassion and give away other peoples' money".
JD| 9.12.12 @ 11:31AM
No, their response is that our charitable giving is largely to churches, which they consider to be evil, so it shouldn't count as charity. They say the stats are skewed, and the reality flatters them.
They would never think to consider that we have no respect for most of their "charities" - Planned Parenthood, ACORN, the Sierra Club, PETA, etc - either.
As always, inconvenient truths are to be discredited, not explained.
The Avenger| 9.12.12 @ 10:34AM
Very few in the media have the guts to say what Sowell says. The democrats have replaced their blatant racism of their past with the more palatable racism they espouse today. How else can you explain the fact that 95% of the black votes go to the party which promotes policies which have devastated the black family. Now that they have secured the plantation mentality of the blacks, can the latino population be far behind.
wolf| 9.12.12 @ 1:41PM
can the latino population be far behind...
they (illegal aliens) are our new "slaves" and they love it...protected status-sanctuary cities..pay little or no taxes..deportation is a minimal risk..they have all the benefits of being a citizen..(they do vote, dont they) and send billions of dollars " back home " .. and are treated as long lost puppies by the dems...
what a racket!!!
Pecos Pete| 9.12.12 @ 10:39AM
When they have given it all away, what then?
PolishKnight| 9.12.12 @ 12:27PM
I went to the Bill Gates Foundation page and looked up what they were up to and unsurprisingly (sadly), I found that the homepage had a link for academic scholarships saying "anyone should be able to go to college" due to lack of income/status. Then I clicked on the links for "details" and that's where the devil lies:
"women of color scholarships", etc.
In other words, inner city black guys, Bill Gates has a jail cell with your name on it. Because he _cares_. And Bill Gates knows hardship: He was a rich kid with parents in the industry with inside contacts to get him a meeting for a preferential contract to MSDOS which he then bought off some other company.
Butch| 9.12.12 @ 3:39PM
Is that right? Every time my '84 IBM PC booted up, I wondered "who the hay is the Microsoft Corporation and where the hay is Redmond, WA? I wondered how an obscure organization could get the operating system contract from the industry giant.
Carroll | 9.13.12 @ 12:10AM
The Constitution refers to the literal mechanical printing press. It guarantees you, me, everybody the right to have in their possession the means of producing and distributing printed material.