This piece was originally published on February 17th 2014 under the title "Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain" (I've done some minor updating for this new posting). It is a sort of companion piece to my more recent post, "In Mother Jones, of All Places" [here]. Where "Mother Jones" deals with a left-wing perspective on poverty, this post discusses the views of an economist looking at poverty from the right. Despite differences in rhetoric and proposed solutions, they come to some similar conclusions.
Walter Williams published a piece earlier this year called ”Dependency, Not Poverty” [link]
that immediately brought to mind the brouhaha over Pope Francis’ supposed
condemnation of capitalism in Evangelii Gaudium. You might
recall that in said brouhaha the “smoking gun” brandished by gleeful leftists
is the following quote:
Economist Walter Williams |
"In this context, some people
continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth,
encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about
greater justice and inclusiveness in the world". (Evangelii
Gaudium 54)
As I pointed out in an earlier post [link],
this statement fits in perfectly with over a century of Magisterial teaching by
popes (Leo XIII, Pius XI, John Paul II) who were in no way friendly to
socialism. One could argue that it is simply common sense.
William’s article provides a perfect, real-world example of the truth in the Pope's statement: Ladies and gentlemen,
I give you The United States of America.
Williams offers some intriguing facts taken from a report by Dr. Robert Rector
and Rachel Sheffield, “Understanding poverty in the United States” [link]:
*80% of poor households have air conditioning
*Nearly three quarters have a car or truck (31% have two or
more)
*Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV
*Half have one or more computers
*42% own their own home
*“Poor Americans have more
living space than the typical non-poor in Sweden, France
or the UK.”
or the UK.”
Williams also points out that, while the
poverty rate among American blacks in general is 35%, “the poverty rate among
black married families has been in single digits for more than two decades,
currently at 8%.” Williams concludes that, rather than simple material
deprivation caused by factors beyond the reach of the sufferers, “What we have
in our nation are dependency and poverty of the spirit, with people making
unwise choices and leading pathological lives aided and abetted by the welfare
state.”
In short, while “economic growth, encouraged by a free market” has indeed
created enough wealth and more for every person in the United States, it
certainly has not succeeded “in bringing about greater justice and
inclusiveness.” The question is what, as Christians, ought we to do?
This is a very complicated question, to which I, at least, could not do justice
in one blog post, even if I had all the answers. I expect to return to it
in the future. For today, I’d like to sketch out a brief outline.
First, those on the economic left (including many of those who style themselves “Social
Justice Catholics”) advocate more government redistribution, accomplished by
taking wealth from those who produce it and giving it to others who consume
it. Walter Williams (and many others) argue that it is just such
redistributionist policies, which separate wealth from work and incentivize
dependency and indolence, that are largely responsible for the “spiritual
poverty” that is, is many ways, more damaging and demoralizing than ordinary
material poverty (and which ultimately creates material poverty as well).
Common sense and human experience bear him out. Benjamin Franklin
famously said:
I am for doing good to the
poor, but . . . I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making
them easy in poverty, it is leading or driving them out of it. I observed
. . . that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they
provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the
contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and
became richer.
Most
of us Christians would not want put the matter quite so harshly; after
all, Christian Charity demands that we do much more than simply letting the
poor enjoy the benefits of the Law of Consequences. Still, Mr. Franklin
has a valid point: if doing nothing pays as well as or better than working
hard, what incentive is there to choose the more difficult road? And St.
Paul himself said: “If anyone will not work, let him not eat. For we hear
that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work.”
(2 Thess 10b-11)
As Catholics we also recognize how important work is to our dignity as human
beings. Saint John Paul the Great says:
Work is a good thing for a man
– a good thing for his humanity – because through work man not only transforms
nature, adapting it to his own needs, but also achieves fulfilment as a human
being and indeed, in a sense, becomes “more a human being.” (Laborem
Exercens 9)
We could
truly say that it is uncharitable to induce otherwise capable people not to
work, because we are robbing them of a part of their human dignity. Pius
XI said that “it is an injustice and at the same time
a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign
to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations
can do.” (Quadrigesimo Anno 79 – italics mine) This same
Principle of Subsidiarity holds as true for individuals as it does for groups
and organizations.
So what are we to conclude? Again, just a couple preliminary conclusions.
First, while it’s true that the market economy’s ability to generate wealth is
not sufficient to create a just society, and does not of itself eliminate
poverty, it is certainly a necessary condition; welfare state policies, on the
other hand, create no wealth at all and, at least in some cases, discourage
people from making choices that could lift them out of poverty. This
doesn’t mean that we ought not to help the needy, but it does mean that such
assistance, whether private or public, ought not to make dependency more
attractive than work.
Also, no system, no program and no amount of wealth can save us from the
effects of original sin; whether we’re looking to welfare state programs or the
market economy for salvation we’re going down the wrong road. I can’t
help but think (not for the first time) of another quote from Saint John Paul II said: “It is
not therefore a matter of inventing a ‘new program’. The program already
exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition, it is
the same as ever.” (Novo Millenio Ineunto 29)
Clearly this is true on the eternal level: the permanent disposition of
our souls far overshadows our material circumstances in this world. But it is
also true on a more mundane level. To the degree that poverty in the United
States and other Western nations is the fruit of what Walter Williams calls
“unwise choices and . . . pathological lives aided and abetted by the
welfare state,” (what we used to call “immorality” and “living in sin”), it can
be corrected by wise choices and healthy lives. Men and women who put
Christ at the center of their lives, and therefore live according to Christian
moral norms (such as traditional monogamous marriage) are likely to live
in a way that leads to a better economic outcome.
My final thought is this: Christian morality is not simply one “lifestyle
choice” among many; it is the truth, based on the reality of human nature as
God created it. The so-called “culture wars” are not a diversion from
more important economic and political matters, but are in fact the key to
solving problems in the political and economic realms. After all, “We
know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.” (Rom
8:28)
No comments:
Post a Comment