the tragedy of american compassion pdf

22
The Tragedy of American Compassion Marvin Olasky Regnery Publishing, 1992 Original – 233 Pages Summary – 21 pages and some change Disclaimer – While this summary contains quotes and some small re‐produced portions of the original book, this summary is not the work of the author of the book summarized. It contains only my carefully chosen selections of what I personally deem to be the most important and significant aspects of the book. This summary is not meant to replace or re‐produce the book in any way, and should not be considered a full substitute for the book. Chapter 1 – The Early American Model of Compassion The model of early American generosity toward those in greatest need stressed personal aid in times of disease. The model also emphasized hospitality, particularly the opening of homes to those suffering destitution because of disaster. The model also insisted on “decent living” on the part of those who were helped. The open hand was not extended to all; the society ruled that “no profane or dissolute person, or openly scandalous shall have any part or portion herein.” The able‐bodied could readily find jobs. When they chose not to, it was considered perfectly appropriate to pressure them to change their minds. Americans followed John Wesley’s advice to “put yourself in the place of every poor man and deal with him as you would your God deal with you.” In colonial America, emphasis on a theistic God of both justice and mercy led to an understanding of compassion that was hard‐headed but warm‐hearted. Since justice meant punishment for wrongdoing, it was right for the slothful to suffer. Theistic understanding led to strong themes, that man, created after God’s image, should go beyond clockwork charity. “God values our hearts and spirits above all our silver or gold, our herds and flocks. If a man would give all the substance of his house instead of love, it would be contemned.” It was important for the better off to know the poor individually, and to understand their distinct characters. There were times, and certain people, for whom charity was to be withheld. Cotton Mather warned his church members in 1698, “Instead of exhorting your to augment your charity, I will rather utter an exhortation that you may not abuse your charity by misapplying it. Let us try to do good with as much application of mind as wicked men employ in doing evil.” The difference between Mather’s restraint and our modern day exuberance indicates the difference between dominant views of human nature then and now. Mather did not assume that most men and women naturally want to work, but that given a choice, most would chose to sit. Charles Chauncy in 1752 told his congregation that “distinguishing between those needy people who are able, and those who are unable to employ themselves in labor” is an obligation of due care. He added, “it would be a breach of the law of the Gospel, as well as nature, to bestow upon those the bread of charity who might earn and eat their own bread. The major type of poverty dealt with in colonial times was caused by a calamity such as fire and earthquake or by a crippling accident or early death. Sufferers of that kind were to receive personal care, often in neighbor’s homes. For those who were alcoholics or disorderly, and refused to work, towns build workhouses where rules were strict, and work was compulsory for those seeking refuge. Enforcing work among the able‐bodied was not seen as oppressive.

Upload: gyurmed

Post on 27-Oct-2014

346 views

Category:

Documents


6 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

TheTragedyofAmericanCompassionMarvinOlaskyRegneryPublishing,1992Original–233PagesSummary–21pagesandsomechangeDisclaimer–Whilethissummarycontainsquotesandsomesmallre‐producedportionsoftheoriginalbook,thissummaryisnottheworkoftheauthorofthebooksummarized.ItcontainsonlymycarefullychosenselectionsofwhatIpersonallydeemtobethemostimportantandsignificantaspectsofthebook.Thissummaryisnotmeanttoreplaceorre‐producethebookinanyway,andshouldnotbeconsideredafullsubstituteforthebook.Chapter1–TheEarlyAmericanModelofCompassionThemodelofearlyAmericangenerositytowardthoseingreatestneedstressedpersonalaidintimesofdisease.Themodelalsoemphasizedhospitality,particularlytheopeningofhomestothosesufferingdestitutionbecauseofdisaster.Themodelalsoinsistedon“decentliving”onthepartofthosewhowerehelped.Theopenhandwasnotextendedtoall;thesocietyruledthat“noprofaneordissoluteperson,oropenlyscandalousshallhaveanypartorportionherein.”Theable‐bodiedcouldreadilyfindjobs.Whentheychosenotto,itwasconsideredperfectlyappropriatetopressurethemtochangetheirminds.AmericansfollowedJohnWesley’sadviceto“putyourselfintheplaceofeverypoormananddealwithhimasyouwouldyourGoddealwithyou.”IncolonialAmerica,emphasisonatheisticGodofbothjusticeandmercyledtoanunderstandingofcompassionthatwashard‐headedbutwarm‐hearted.Sincejusticemeantpunishmentforwrongdoing,itwasrightfortheslothfultosuffer.Theisticunderstandingledtostrongthemes,thatman,createdafterGod’simage,shouldgobeyondclockworkcharity.“Godvaluesourheartsandspiritsabovealloursilverorgold,ourherdsandflocks.Ifamanwouldgiveallthesubstanceofhishouseinsteadoflove,itwouldbecontemned.”Itwasimportantforthebetterofftoknowthepoorindividually,andtounderstandtheirdistinctcharacters.Thereweretimes,andcertainpeople,forwhomcharitywastobewithheld.CottonMatherwarnedhischurchmembersin1698,“Insteadofexhortingyourtoaugmentyourcharity,Iwillratherutteranexhortationthatyoumaynotabuseyourcharitybymisapplyingit.Letustrytodogoodwithasmuchapplicationofmindaswickedmenemployindoingevil.”ThedifferencebetweenMather’srestraintandourmoderndayexuberanceindicatesthedifferencebetweendominantviewsofhumannaturethenandnow.Matherdidnotassumethatmostmenandwomennaturallywanttowork,butthatgivenachoice,mostwouldchosetosit.CharlesChauncyin1752toldhiscongregationthat“distinguishingbetweenthoseneedypeoplewhoareable,andthosewhoareunabletoemploythemselvesinlabor”isanobligationofduecare.Headded,“itwouldbeabreachofthelawoftheGospel,aswellasnature,tobestowuponthosethebreadofcharitywhomightearnandeattheirownbread.Themajortypeofpovertydealtwithincolonialtimeswascausedbyacalamitysuchasfireandearthquakeorbyacripplingaccidentorearlydeath.Sufferersofthatkindweretoreceivepersonalcare,ofteninneighbor’shomes.Forthosewhowerealcoholicsordisorderly,andrefusedtowork,townsbuildworkhouseswhereruleswerestrict,andworkwascompulsoryforthoseseekingrefuge.Enforcingworkamongtheable‐bodiedwasnotseenasoppressive.

Page 2: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

Anotherpre‐1800poverty‐fightingprinciplewasanemphasisonfamilyrelationships.Nothingthatcouldcontributetothebreakupoffamilies,ortothelossofhefamily’scentralroleassupportofitsmembers,wasencouraged.EarlylawsintheNorthwestTerritoriesdecreedthatparents,grandparents,andchildrenofeverypoor,old,blind,lameandimpotentperson,orotherpoorpersonunabletowork,shouldrelieveandmaintaineverysuchpoorperson.Aidfurthermore,wasalmostalwaysinkind–food,coal,cloth–ratherthancash.Athree‐leggedstoolofFamily,Church,andNeighborhoodwasputinplace.Butthatstoolwassteadiestinthecountrysideandinsmalltowns.Ascitiesgrew,moreorganizationwasnecessaryifthoseinneedthroughnofaultoftheirownweretobehelped.Inthegrowingurbanareas,marriedwomenwerenotexpectedtohaveapayingjob,andthisprovedvitaltotheexpansionofvoluntaristiccompassion.Womenwereoftenintheforefrontofbenevolentactivity.SocialthoughtofthisperioddidnotinsistonequaltreatmentforallwhowereintroubleThegoalwastoserveindividualswhohadunavoidableproblems.EachyeartheSocietyforthePreventionofPauperismintheCityofNewYork,agroupwhosegoalwastoattackdestitutionofallkinds,printedinitsannualreportsalistof10causesofpauperism.Thefirstthreewereignorance,idlenessandintemperance.Thencame“wantofeconomy”,imprudentandhastymarriages,andlotteries.Thenpawnbrokers,brothelsandgamblinghouses.Thislistwithanemphasisonpersonalfailingsandthen‐institutionallures,typifiedmostsocialthoughtofthetime,butanewelementappeared;thetenthcausewas“charitiesthatgaveawaymoneytoofreely.”Therewerenotmanyofthesebutinagrowingeconomy,anyeaseofsubsidywasviewedasdestructivebothmorallyandmaterially.Theemphasisonanobligationtochangeiscriticizedbymany20thcenturyhistorians.19thcenturypracticeisfrequentlydescribedas“moralistic,paternalistic,andcontrolling.”Therewasahardnessinthosedaysbasedonthebeliefthatsomeindividualsneededtosufferinordertobewillingtochange.Noonehowever,oughttobelefttostarve.Absolutedistressandwantmustberelieved,whatevercausesproducedit.Buttoughlovewasstandard.Thosewhogavematerialaidwithoutrequiringeventhesmallestreturnwereconsideredasmuchathreattotruecompassionasthosewhoturnedtheirbacksonneighborsandbrothers.Themostfamousforeignobserveroftheearly19thcenturywasAlexisdeTocqueville.HenotedthatAmericans“displaygeneralcompassion”andhecontrastedAmerica’s“freeinstitutions”withthoseofEuropesaying,“thestatealmostexclusivelyundertakestosupplybreadtothehungry,assistanceandsheltertothesick,worktotheidle,andtoactasthesolerelieveforallkindsofmisery.”In1990ChrisEdleyJr.wroteintheLegalTimes,thathedidnotgivemoneytobeggarsbecause,“Ipaytaxesforsocialworkerstodeterminewhoisneedy.”Hisdecisionnottogivewasright,hisrationalewaswrong.Chapter2–TurningCitiesintoCountryside

Page 3: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

AsAmericancitiesbegantogrow,thosewholookedaheadstudiedtheexperienceofthoseintheBritishIsleswhowerealreadytastingthefuture.AmericansobservedtheestablishmentinEngland’snewlyindustrializedcitiesoflargelyindiscriminate“outdoorrelief”.ThomasChalmers–rectorofStJohn’sParishinGlasgowfrom1819–1823–insistedonadistinctionbetweenpauperismandpoverty.Secondhearguedthatstatutoryrelieftendedtopauperizebecauseitremovedtheneedforself‐helpanddiscipline.Third,hestressedthebiblicalobligationofthebetter‐offtobecomepersonallyinvolvedwiththepoor.Fourth,hearguedthatthosewhowerepoorbecauseoftheirownfailingsneededtoindicateawillingnesstochangemodesofthinkingoractingthatweredraggingthemdown;iftheydidnot,thosewhowishedtohelpweretostepawayforawhile,renewtheoffer,andbewillingtostepawayagainforatimeifheartshadnotchanged.Chalmersranaunique“experiment”inGlasgow,inaspeciallycreateddistrict,thepoorestdistrict.Hetookresponsibilityfortheneedsofthepoor,andthegovernmentagreedtostayoutofhiswayfortheexperiment.Theyfurtherdividedthedistrictintosmallerdistrictsandputdeaconsinchargeofeach.Theyweretheoneswhohelpedbuildrelationships,evaluatedneeds,anddecidedwhattodo.Theprogramwasatremendoussuccess.‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Ingeneral,giventhedifficultiesofhelping,charityleadersbelievedthatfewwouldvolunteermanyhourseachweekiftheydidnotseethemselvesassoul‐saversandnotjustbread‐providers.Leadersandvolunteersbothunderstood,moreover,thatthemostvitalkindofhelpinvolvedachangeinworldview,notjustatemporaryadjustmentofworldlyconditions.Inrecentyears,conventionallyliberalhistorianshavetendedtominimizetheusefulnessofthegroupsthat“oftentriedtospreadreligionalongwithalms:and“paidlittleattentiontotheunderlyingcausesofdestitutionorthelong‐termneedsoftheirclients.”Buttheunderlyingcausesandlong‐termneedswerereligious,early19thcenturycharityworkersconsistentlyargued.“Untilfeelings,opinions,andpracticesofthegreatsmassaregovernedbysoundprinciples,andChristianitypervadesandrenovatesthehabitsofsocialandciviclife,thereisnoreliablefoundationforprosperity.“Thegoalwastousebothsacredandsecularmotivestohelprectifythewronginindividualcharacter…CatholicandJewishgroupsagreedonthisissue.Thosewhohavemuchtodowithalmsgivingandplansofhumanimprovementsoonseehowsuperficialandcomparativelyuselessallassistanceororganizationis,whichdoesnottouchhabitsoflifeandtheinnerforceswhichformcharacter.Thepoorhelpedeachyearbecomepoorerinforceandindependence.CharlesBrace(aYalegrad,awriter,andfounderofNewYorkChildren’sSociety)arguedthat“thebestpoliticsandthemostcompleteformofgovernmentarenothingiftheindividualmoralitybenotthere.Christianityisthehighesteducationofcharacter.Givethepoorthat,andonlyseldomwilleitheralmsorpunishmentbenecessary.Experiencesoonshowsthatifyouputacomfortablecoatonthefirstidleandraggedladwhoapplies,youwillhave50halfcladlads,manywhompossesshiddenawayacomfortableoutfit,leavingtheirbusinessnextday,togetjacketsfornothing.”

Page 4: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

Bracearguedthatpoverty‐fightershadtostifletheir“firstimpulse”whichwastoofferimmediatematerialhelp.Chapter3–FirstChallengetotheCharityConsensus“Apennysavedisapennyearned.”Theauthorofthatmaxim,BenjaminFranklin,visitedLondonin1766andwasstruckbyhowaBritishwelfareactwasteachingtheopposite.“Thereisnocountryintheworldwherethepooraremoreidle,dissolute,drunkenandinsolent.Thedayyoupassedthewelfareactyoutookawayfrombeforetheireyesthegreatestofallinducementstoindustry,frugalityandsobriety,bygivingthemadependenceonsomewhatelsethanacarefulaccumulationduringyouthandhealthforsupportinageandsickness.Repealthatlawandyouwillsoonseeachangeintheirmanners.”Franklin’shorrifiedreactionwasatypicalearlyAmericanresponsetogovernmentwelfareprograms.Concerninggovernmentaldistributionofmoneyorfood,Franklincontemporariestypicallyarguedthat“veryoftenitcreatesandappetitewhichismoreharmfulthatthepainitisintendedtorelieve.”But,ascitiesstartedgrowing,complexitiesgrewandquestionsarose.Therewereminuteshadesofdifferencebetweenthepauperwhothroughimpotencycandoabsolutelynothingandthepauperwhoisabletodosomething,butthat,verylittle.Atoostringentstandardofdisabilitywouldexcludesomewhotrulyneededhelp,butastandardtoloosewoulddiscourageeffortbythosewithcapabilities.JosiahQuincy–chairmanofpauperlawsinMassin1821concludedthatneitherhislegislativecommitteenotothergovernmentalbodiescoulddothejob.Giventhenuances,heattested,nogroupthatbyitsnaturelackedflexibilitywouldbeabletosetacross‐the‐boardregulations.“Theremustalwaysexist,somanycircumstancesofage,sex,previoushabits,muscularormentalstrength,tobetakenintoaccount,thatsocietyisabsolutelyincapabletofixanystandard,ortoprescribeanyrulebywhichtheclaimofrighttothebenefitofthepublicprovisionshallbedetermined.”Basedonsuchviews,thetypicalformofgovernmentalsupportofthepoorintheearly19thcenturycontinuedtobethepoorhouses(sometimesknownasAlmsHousesorforthosewhocouldwork,WorkHouses).Theirexistencemeantthatnoonewouldstarve,buttheirpoorreputationalsomeantthatnoonwouldbeattractedintopauperism.Poorhouseswereneverthemajorsocietalformofcharity–the“worthypoor”continuedtoreceivehelpthroughprivatemeans.Butthepoorhousesprovidedadesperationsafetynetandato“outdoorrelief”whichwasseenasleadingtoruin.Despitethewarnings,afewcitiesandtownsdidsetupoutdoorreliefprograms,showingthatsomeableresidentsacceptedalmsinpreferencetoworkingandsomehard‐workingpeoplewerediscouragedbyobservingthatbountywasbestowedupontheidle,whichtheycouldonlyobtainbythesweatoftheirbrow.Reliefofficialsofferingacertaintyofpublicprovisionweresaidtobehandingout“invitationstobecomebeggars.”Suchmeasureswereparticularlycriticizedbecausemanystudieswereshowingthatthemajorcauseofdestitutionwasintemperance.From75‐90%ofthepaupersinallpartsofthecountry,mayattributetheirdegradationtotheviceofintemperance.

Page 5: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

Referringtothosereceivingsomethingfornothing,workersoftenobserved,“theunblushingeffronterythatsomeexhibit.Thethanklessnesswithwhichtheydemandtheirallotment,andtheinsolencewithwhichtheydemandafurthersupply,exactingitasaright,witharrogance,whatneverhaveoughttobegranted,evenasacharity.”Chalmerswarningsabout“compassionfatigue,andaneventualreductioninsupplyfromprivateindividualsbegantoring‐true.Theneedypoor,arguedChalmers,endupwithlessunderamandatorysystemthanwhen“thefountainofhumansympathy”freelyoperates.Privategroupswereabletoactwithdiscretionanddiscernment,butgovernmentorganizationswouldfinditmoredifficulttosay“yes”tosomeand“no”toothers.AmericanwritersreferredtotheexperienceofancientRome,“wherepoliticiansofthetimeuseddolestothepoortoobtainpositionswhichtheywerefarfromcompetenttohold.”NathanielWaresadlypredictedthatanAmericangovernmentalwelfaresystemwoulddevelop,soonerorlater,becauseofficeholderslikedtoappealtopoorvoterswhowouldgivethempowertodistributelargeamountsofmoney.Americansweretoldyearafteryeartotaketohearttheexperienceofothernationsandothertimes,whichshowedthatofficialrelief“onlyfosteredpauperismbyaffixingapremiumtoindiscriminatepoverty.”Allhistoricalandcontemporarystudysuggestedthatthemorethatisdone,themoremaybedone,asthesupplyis,sowillbethedemand,unlessitsdistributionbeundertheoutmostdiscrimination.”MinisterWilliamRuffner,in1853,claimedthat“idlenessandimprovidenceresultwhenevertherearelargefundsprovided–andespeciallywhenprovidedbytaxationanddisbursedbystateofficials.”Therealdebatewasoverwhethertheresponsibilitytohelpthepoorshouldbeinthehandsofthegovernmentorinthehandsofprivateindividuals,andaboutthebasicnatureofman,beitgoodorevil.Thedebateendedinfavorofgovernmenthelp,andinthebeliefthatmanisbasicallygoodinallhisnature;twoerroneousassumptions.Justificationsforgovernmentwelfareprogramssproutedduringthe1850’s.Somearguedthat“everyhumanegovernment”shouldmaintainthepoor.Sincesocietyasawholewasresponsibleforthepoor,societyasawholeshouldpayforthepoor,reasonedmany.Whatbegantohappenwasthattrendlinesforreliefwentupwardsingoodtimes,aswellasinbad,andmanycontinuedtoarguethatbetween75‐90%ofpovertywascausedbyalcoholism.ScholarSamuelAustinAllibone,forexample,wassarcasticaboutabookthatexpressedloveforthepoorbutdidnotdiscussintemperance,sinceheconnecteditwith¾ofAmericanpoverty.Some,however,cametobelievethatmostoftheaidbeingprovidedbythegovernmentwasgoingtothe“unworthypoor”,andtheyproposedthataidshouldbeprivateratherthangovernmentalsothatclaimscouldbeexaminedcarefully.HenryRaymond’sNewYorkTimesarguedthatgovernmentalcharitywaslikelyto“breedindifferenceintheheartsofthosewhosupport,andimbecilityinthecharactersofthosewhoprofitbythemachineryofbenevolence.Otherorganizationscontinuedtooppose“soquestionableandhazardousamodeofreliefassouphouses,availabletoallwithoutchecking.Beyewiseasserpentsandharmlessasdovesmustbecarriedintoourcharities.Ifschemesofindiscriminatecharitywerefollowed,wemightaswellthrowthemoneyinthestreetandletthepoorscrambleforit,andthenbeastonishedattheriotwecreated.”

Page 6: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

Moreandmoresoupkitchensdidspringuptofeedanyandall,buttherewerestillsolidpointsoflighthelpingtheworthyneedy.Thesepointsoflightwerehelpfultomanyforabriefperiod,butonestudyshowedthatoverhalfofthemoneyraisedfor“industriousvictims”oftherecession,wasspenton“fecklessbums”and“imposters.”Soonadestructivepatternemerged.Onecharityofficialnotedthatindiscriminate,soup‐kitchencharitywasbothtoomuchandtoolittle,foritwasdispersedintantalizingdoles,miserablyinadequateforeffectualsuccorwheretheneedwasgenuine,anddealtoutbroadcastamongtheclamorousandimpudent.Chapter4–TheSocialDarwinistThreatInthe1870’smostAmericansstilllivedinruralareas,true,buturbanpoverty‐fightersfacedhurdlesatleastashighasthosetoday.Atthattimeurbanpopulationdensitywasoftenlargerthantoday,andlifeexpectancywaslower,leavingmoreandmoreorphansonthestreets.Rapidimmigrationandurbanizationmadeinfrastructurebuckle.Mosteasterncitiesdoubledfrom1860‐1890andincreased6to10foldincitieslikeChicagoandCleveland.Societywaspoorerandthelaborandlivingconditionsmorestrenuousthanthoseoftoday.Duringthisperiod,manyofthepreviouslycharitablebecamesickofitall.Compassionmalaisewasevidenteverywhere.EvenHoraceGreenly,astaunchformersupporterofdistributedwealth,andmaterialprovisionforallregardlessofworkethic,recordedhisexasperationatwhathistypeofthinkinghadcreated.Heconcludedintheend–makeupthesquareissue–workorstarve!–andamanislikelytochoosework”Hedecidedthatexceptforwidows,orphansandotherswithinthetraditionalworthypoorcategory,thebestresponsetoapersonaskingforhelpwasNature’sresponse–root,hog,ordie!GeorgeMcGonegal,NYstatesuperintendentforthepoor,criticizedprograms“whereinfamiliesarefurnishedastatedamountweeklyormonthly,andthisiscontinuedweekaftermonth,afteryear.–theirchildrenlearntothinkthatgettingprovisionsandfuelfromtheoverseerofthepoorisperfectlyrightandproper,andtheyarealmostcertaintofollowintheparentsfootsteps.Iknowofnothingwhichdoessomuchtoencouragepauperismandeducatepaupersforthenextgenerationasthis[welfare]system.”Astheincidenceofcompassionfatigueaugmented,itbecameeasierandeasiertogiveinto“generalwelfare”ideas.Atthesametimeincreasedimmigrationandurbanizationwascreatingmoreeconomicsegregation.Sharplydefinedrichandpoorareasemerged,meaningthatmoreaffluentpeoplewerelesslikelytoencounterneedsdirectly.Ithadbecomemoreeasytoignorethepoorandrelyonmediatedcompassionofothersandpressreportsaboutthepoor.Oncesomecharitygroupsgaveintothepressuretojustgiveindiscriminately,othergroupsfacedpressuretodothesame,orriskbeingcategorizedasScroogesandignoredbythoseithopedtohelp.Furthermore,itwasduringthepostwar(CivilWar)periodofcompassionfatigueandgrowingeconomicsegregationthat–notcoincidentally–thepoisonousideologyofSocialDarwinismbegantopickupmanyadherents.Equatingtheeconomicstruggleamonghumanswiththestruggleforsurvivalamonganimals,SocialDarwiniststypicallyarguedthat“theunfitmustbeeliminatedasnatureintended,fortheprincipleofnaturalselectionmustnotbeviolatedbytheartificialpreservationofthoseleastabletotakecareofthemselves.”Naturesremediesagainstviceareterrible.Sheremovesthevictimswithoutpity.Adrunkardinthe

Page 7: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

gutterisjustwhereheoughttobe,accordingtothefitnessandtendencyofthings.Naturehassetuponhimtheprocessofdeclineanddissolutionbywhichsheremovesthingswhichhavesurvivedtheirusefulness.–WilliamSumnerFromandeconomicpointofviewthegentlemanpaysthebeggarforbeingpoor,miserable,idle,dirtyandworthless.Ineverycommunitythereisademandforbricklayers,andacertainportionofthemenwilllaybricks,andinsuchawayastogainthehighestwages.Andinacommunitywherethereisademandforbeggars,acertainnumberofmenwillbecomeso,andtheywillstudytheprofessionalaccomplishmentsofbeggingwhichwillhelpthemdraythemostmoneyfromthepocketsofthebenevolent.–SimonNewcombSocialDarwinismpickedupstrongoppositionfromchurches,somecallingitthe“enemyofthespirituallawofsacrifice”,taughtintheBibleandseenmostclearlyinGod’ssacrificeofhisSon.ManyobservedthatJesusneitherabandonedtheneedy,norfeedthemimmediately.Instead,hetaughtthem.EvangelicalsrealizedthatonlytwoconcurrentchangeswouldbeabletobeatbackSocialDarwinismandreallyhelpthepooratthesametime.First,governmentandindividualshadtorefrainfromhandingoutbadcharitythatcreatedunnecessarydependency.Second,morepointsoflightwereneeded;discerningalternatives.Theymustapplythelessonslearnedearlierinthecentury,evenintheharsherurbanenvironments.Thefirststep–gettinggovernmentsoutofthewelfaredistributionbusiness,wasacitybycitystruggle,butnotafruitlessone.Activistsin8ofthelargestcities(NewYork,Baltimore,Philly,DC,St.Louis,KansasCity,S.F.)wereabletoabolishoutdoorreliefduringthe1870’sand1880’s.Thebattleovermindscontinued.TheSocialDarwinistswerecriticizeddirectlybythosewhoarguedthatitwaswrongto“standaloofinhaughtyindifferencefromallthewoesofourfellowmen,andtocloseourearstothecriesofthesuffering.Iflefttothemselvesandnokindhandishelpouttoassist,theywillinevitablesinklowerandloweruntiltheyendtheircourseinsuicideorfelony.”Theyalsonoted,however,thatSocialDarwinismwasanaturalreactiontothemisdirectedloveofthosewhochoosetogiveblindlyattheapproachofdistress,realorfeigned,mistakingtheflutterofsatisfaction,whicheverfollowsanactofbenevolence,fortherealsmileofHeaven.Forifcharityisnottemperedbyjudgment,thepoorwilllearntobedependent,tillatlast,throughbydegrees,everyvestigeofmanlinessandambitionwillhavebeendestroyed,andtheywillcomebackasskilledbeggars,totormentandcursetheverypeoplewhoseso‐calledcharityhasmadethemwhattheyare.Ruleshadtobemadetocontinuallydistinguishbetweenworthyandunworthypoor.TheBuffaloCharityOrganizationeventuallyestablishedthisprocedure:theattempttodistinguishbetweenworthyandunworthycasesisextremelydifficult.Inallcases,however,letthe“laboraxiom”bethetest–whetherornottheapplicantiswillingtodoasmuchworkashisconditionallows.Thosewhowerecrippledortemporarilyunabletoworkbecauseofillnesswereexcused,aswerewidowwithyoungchildren.Theotherthingtheydidattimeswasprovidesmallloans,withnointerestcharges,whichrequiredthepeopletoworkinordertopaybackthehelp.Helpwhichneedlesslyreleasesthepoorfromthenecessityofprovidingforthemselvesisinviolationofdivinelawandincursthepenaltieswhichfollowanyinfractionofthatlaw.Publicaidcannotbedefended;ithasnoneoftheredeemingfeaturesofprivatecharity,becausethereisnothingpersonalorsofteninginit.

Page 8: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

Nothingshouldbedoneundertheguiseofcharity,whichtendstobreakdowncharacter.Itisthegreatestwrongthatcanbedonetohimtounderminethecharacterofthepoor.Thestruggleishard.Heneedsallhisdeterminationandstrengthofwilltofighthisway,andnothingthatdeprivesthepoormanofthesequalitiescanbecalled‘charitable.’”–MrsJosephineLowell–NYCharityOrg.SocietyCitizensneededtolearnthattheoutdoorreliefofsoupkitchenswasnotgenerous,butstingy.Stingyinhumancontact,stingyinitsestimationofwhathumansmadeinGod’simagewerecapableofdoingandbecoming,andstingyinrefusingtodivideuptheavailableamountofmaterialsupportsothatthosewhoreallyneededitreceivedanamplesupply,butthosewhowouldbehurtbyitreceivednone.Chapter5–ProvingSocialDarwinismWrongBythemid1880’soutdoorreliefwasout.Manyprivateorganizationscontinuetoprovethatwithdiscernment,andwithpersonalinvolvementwiththepoor,bothreformandreliefwaspossible.Andthatprovidingmaterialhelptoallwithoutregardtocharacterandbehaviorwasfoolish,andactuallymadetheproblemworse.Therewasawaytobetrulycompassionatetowardsthepoor,withoutcreatinganunhealthydependency.Chapter6–TheSevenMarksofCompassionEvenifitisacknowledgedthatthelate19thcenturywaronpovertyisrelevanttoourown,andthatmuchhappened,athirdquestionremains:Whatexactlydidthecharityofthateraaccomplish?Whatwastheirsecret.Aswehaveseen,itwasnotneglect,eitherbenignormalign;inthelate19thcentury,SocialDarwinismdidnotsinkdeeproots.Norwastheirsecretacenturyagotheshoweringofmoneyonthepoor,northetriumphofananti‐statistspirit;theyknewthatprivateagenciescouldbejustasbadasgovernmentones,ifnotwellrun.No,charityworkersacenturyagowerefiredupby7ideasthatrecentwelfarepracticehasputonthebackburner.Ifweunderstandhowthese7principleswereappliedwecanatleastasktherightquestionsaboutwherewehavegonewrong.1)Affiliation–Charityorganizationsrespondedbytellingvolunteerstoworkhardat“restoringfamilytiesthathavebeensundered”and“strengtheningachurchorsocialbondthatisweakened.”Theprimegoalofrelief,allagreed,wasnotmaterialdistributionbut“affiliation…there‐absorptioninordinaryindustrialandsociallifeofthosewhoforsomereasonhavesnappedthethreadsthatboundthemtotheothermembersofthecommunity.Reliefgivenwithoutreferencetofriendsandneighborsisaccompaniedbymoralloss.”Familyandneighborlytiesmustbeenforcedratherthanrelaxed.Similarly,abandonedyoungpeopleweretobeplacedinalternativefamilies,notinstitutionalized.Orphansweretobeplacedwithfamiliesasquicklyaspossible–acenturyagothatmeantdaysorweeks,notmonthsoryearsinfostercare.2)Bonding‐Whenadultapplicantsforhelpweretrulyalong,thenitwastimeforbondingwithvolunteers,whoinessencebecamenewfamilymembers.Eachvolunteerhasanarrowbutdeep

Page 9: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

responsibility;“asmallnumberoffamilies,fromthreetofive,areenoughtoexhaustallthetime,attention,andfriendlycarewhichonevisitorhas.”3)Categorization–Butsuchcontactwasnotuninformed.Volunteers–typicallymiddleclasschurchmembers–werehelpedintheirtasksbycarefulcategorizationthatcharitiesrequireduponinitialcontactwithapplicants.Charitiesdidnottreateveryoneequally‐andsincetheywereprivate,theydidnothaveto.Insteadcharityorganizationsocietiesconsidered“worthyofrelief”onlythosewhowerepoorthroughnofaultoftheirownandunabletochangetheirsituationquickly.Buttheshiftlessandintemperatewhowereunwillingtoworkwerecategorizedas“unworthy–notentitledtorelief.”Inthisgroupwere“thosewhoprefertoliveonalms”thosewith“confirmedintemperance”,andthe“viciouswhoseempermanentlyso.”Volunteerswhoagreedtovisitsuchindividualshadtobeofhardystockandoftenofroughexperience;thebestwereoftenex‐alcoholicsorex‐convicts.4)Discernment–Categorizationwasaccompaniedbydiscernment,whichgrewoutofthebenignsuspicionthatcamenaturallytocharityworkerswhohadgrownupreadingtheBible.Awarefromtheirtheologyofthedeviousnessofthehumanheart,19thcenturycharityworkerswerenotsurprisedwhensomeamongthepoor“preferredtheirconditionandeventriedtotakeadvantageofit.”Onlydiscernmentonthepartofcharityworkerswhoknewtheiraid‐seekersintimatelycouldpreventfraud.Discernmentbyvolunteers,andorganizationalbarriersagainstfraud,wereimportantnotonlytopreventwaste,buttopreservemoraleamongthosewhowereworkinghardtoremainindependent.Onecharityworkernoted,“nothingismoredemoralizingtothestrugglingpoorthansuccessesoftheindolentorvicious.”TheNewOrleansCOStriedtoimpressonit’svolunteersmaximsofdiscernmentbyprintingonthebackcoverofitsannualreportsstatementssuchas,“Intelligentgivingandintelligentwithholdingarealiketruecharity,”and“ifdrinkhasmadeamanpoor,moneywillnotfeedhim,buthisdrunkenness.”NewHavenministerH.L.Waylandcriticizedthe“wellmeaningtender‐hearted,sweet‐voicedcriminalswhoinsistuponindulginginindiscriminatecharity.”5)Employment–Thenextkeyelementwaslong‐termemploymentofallable‐bodiedhouseholdheads.6)Freedom–Alongwithemploymentcametheemphasisonfreedom–definedbyimmigrantsnotastheopportunitytodoanythingwithanyoneatanytime,butastheopportunitytoworkandworshipwithoutgovernmentrestriction.Itwascleartomostthatgovernmentsubsidycouldnotprovidethekindoffreedomthatwasimportant.In1894AmosWarnerdidamammothstudyongovernmentcharityandcompiledwhathadbeenlearned: a)itisnecessarilymoreimpersonalandmechanicalthanprivatecharityorindividualaction. b)thereissometendencytoclaimpublicreliefasaright,andfortheindolentandincapabletothrowthemselvesflatuponit.Thisfeelingwillalwaysassertitselfwheneveritisgivenanopportunitytodoso.

Page 10: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

c)inpubliccharity,officialismisevenmorepronouncedthanunderprivatemanagement.Thedegradationofcharacterofthemanonasalarysettotheworkofrelievingthepoorisoneofthemostdiscouragingthingsinconnectionwithreliefwork. d)itispossibletodosomuchreliefworkthat,whichonesetofpersonsisrelieved,anotherwillbetaxedacrossthepauperline.TheburdenofsupportingtheStatetendstodiffuseitselfalongthelinesoftheleastresistance,consequentlymoneywhichisraisedforthereliefofthepoormaycomeoutofpocketsthatcanillspareit. e)theblightofpartisanpoliticsandgratuitouslyawkwardadministrationoftenfallsuponthework.Charitableinstitutionsarespoilsofaninsignificantcharacter,thrownfrequentlytothelessdeservingamongthehenchmenofthesuccessfulpoliticalbosses.Charityleadersandpreachersfrequentlyspokeoffreedomandshowedhowdependencywasmerelyslaverywithasmilingmask.SocialworkerGredericAlmyarguesthat“almsarelikedrugsandarejustasdangerousfortheoftencreateanappetitewhichismoreharmfulthanthepainwhichtheyrelieve.”Freedomcouldonlybegraspedwhenindividualstookresponsibility.7)God–Christiansbelievedthatthey–madeintheimageofGod–werecalledtosufferwith–ingratitudeforhesufferingdoneforthem,andinobediencetobiblicalprinciples.Jewishteachingstressedthepursuitofrighteousnessthroughthedoingofgooddeeds,particularlythoseshowingloving‐kindness.Repeatedly,inJudgesandotherbooks,theBibletoldhowwhenIsraeliteshadsinned,theyweretorepentandturnawayfromtheirsin;onlythen,asarulewouldGodshowcompassion.TheysawGodshowingcompassionwhiledemandingchange,andtheytriedtodothesame.Affiliation,Bonding,Categorization,Discernment,Employment,Freedom–andintheend–God’sgrace.Butthequestionstillremains,didthelate19thcenturywaronpovertywork,andwhatuseareit’slessonstous?Chapter7–AndWhyNotdoMore(SocialUniversalism)Thequestion,nevertheless,continuestoringout:Whynotdomore?Formanypeopledirepovertywasonlyashort‐termcurse–butwhydidtheyhavetosufferatall?Yes,charityandchallengeaidedindividualstoescapefrompoverty,andyes,economicgrowthledtoupwardmobility,butwasitfairthatmanycitizensadvancedslowly,andsomenotatall?Andifcharityleadersrespondedthattheone‐by‐onehelpofferedbyvolunteerswasaslowbutsurewayofhelpingsomeandnotmakinglifeworseforothers,theywereblamedforfailingtoalterthelivesofmassesintheirpreoccupationwithindividuals.Underlyingthisdemandformasstransformationwasthebeliefthatmanwasnaturallygoodandproductiveunlessanprogressivesystemgotintheway.IncontrasttotheSocialCalvinistsandtheSocialDarwinists,thosewhobelievedthiscouldbecalled“SocialUniversalists.”SocialUniversalism,withitscombinationoftheologicalliberalismandpoliticalsocialism,gainedgreatsupportamongtheintellectualandliteraryelite.Itwasabeliefinthe“exerciseofphilanthropyasthedutyofgovernment.”RichardElyurgedeconomistsandtheologianstounitebehindthe“philanthropyofgovernments,eitherlocal,state,ornational.”Hewonconvertstohisfaiththat“onlycoercivephilanthropycouldestablishamongustruecitiesofGod.”Therewasahighmindedearnestness,adesiretohelp,andadesiretodomore,aslongasthe‘more’couldbeuniversalandunconditional.Theirtheology,labeledwithpublicrelationsbrilliancethe‘social

Page 11: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

gospel’emphasizedGod’slovebutnotGod’sholiness,andthusurgedcharitywithoutchallenge.Theirgospeldeclaredthattheworktestwascruel,becauseapersonwhohasfaceda“crushingloadofmisfortunes”shouldnotbefaultedifhechoosesnottowork.Somewereparticularlyimpressedwiththepotentialofcivilgovernmenttoreordersocietyandmakemen“better.”WilliamFreemantlewrotethat“Governmenthasthepoweroflifeanddeathoverourpersons.Henceitcallsforthworshipmorecompletethananyother.Governmentalonecanembraceallthewantsofitsmembersandaffordthemtheuniversalinstructionandelevation,whichtheyneed.WefindtheNationalonefullyorganized,sovereign,independent,universal,capableofgivingfullexpressiontotheChristianprinciple.Weought,therefore,toregardtheNationastheChurch,itsrulesasministersofChrist,itswholebodyasaChristianbrotherhood,itspublicassembliesasamongthehighestmodesofuniversalChristianfellowship,itsdealingwithmaterialinterestsasSacraments,itsprogressivedevelopment,especiallyinraisingtheweak,asthefullestservicerenderedonearthtoGod,thenearestthingasyetwithinourreachtothekingdomofheaven.Weneedsupremepowerbythosewithclearintellectualperception.”Freemantlewasobviouslyinsane,acommunist,andastateworshipper(aworshipperofmanmorecorrectly).Thenaturalconclusionfromsuchthinkingwouldbe–ifgovernmentonthisearthistheagentofGod,shoulditnotsaveall?Manyorganizationsbeganproclaimingwithhuffiness“Therearenoreligiousaffiliations”.Outwentthehymnsandtestimonies,andincamepoliticalaction.Theyhadnotimeto“sufferwith”thepoor;theywantedtosavetheworld,nottheindividual.ThedowngradingofBiblicalcautionwasimportanttothecause,andwasusuallydescribedas“outgrowingfear”ratherthanashiftinworldview,whichwaswhatitreallywas.JaneAddamssaidin1897,“Ihavenotthegreatfearofpauperizingpeoplewhichmanyofyouseemtohave.”Shehadnotthefear,becauseshehadnottheexperienceofreallyworkingwiththepoor.Deletionoftheideaofasinfulnatureandadelightinutopianhopesworkedhand‐in‐hand,forifhandoutsnolongercorrupted,masstransformationdownabroadhighwayofmaterialdistributionbecamenotonlypossiblebypreferable.StantonCoitandarguedin1894that“onlygovernmentcanlimitthereliefofeachagencytoagivendistrictsothatthereisnooverlaporwaste.Onlytheycanweekbyweek,gatherfullandaccuratestatsoftheconditionoftheunemployed.Onlygovernmentcancompeleveryagencytofollowcarefulmethodstoavoidfraud.Scientificphilanthropistswillsomedaylearnthatcharityorganizationisadistinctivemunicipalfunction.”Suchaviewdowngradedthefrequent19thcenturyconclusionsthatgovernmentwasunabletofosterthespiritofaffiliation,bondingandsoon;buttheorganizationaladvantagesloomedlargerintheeyesofmany.CharlesBrace‐a19thcenturycharityleader–hadsaidmanytimesthatwhatwastrulyimportantincaringfororphanswasaffiliationandbonding,whichworkedbestoverafamilydinnertable,evenifthefoodwasplain,thetableaplank,thechairsboxes,andthediningroomashack.The“familyis1000timesbetterthanallofourmachineryatcharity.”Hesadlycommentedthatmanysupportersseemedmoreinterestedintheconditionofthebuildingsthaninfindinggoodfamilies.Andyet,whilethesuperficialfocusonthematerialwasthegreatdangerforcharities,itwasalsothemostlylikelyoutcomeifcontributionsofmoneybecamemoreimportantthancontributionsof

Page 12: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

time.Thistrendlentimpetustoadditionalgovernmentpower,forthestatecouldnotsavefamiliesbutitcouldbuildbuildings.Thetrendwasclear;anytimethecharitableemphasismovedfromthepersontothemassandfromsoulstostones,governmentbecamethemorepopularengineofprogress.However,the1890’sdidnotlackthosewhorememberedthelessonsofthepast.RobertEllisThompsonoftheUniversityofPennsylvaniaarguedthat“thestate,astheinstituteofrights,cangivenothingtoanymanwithoutconcedingthatitishisrighttohaveit.Therefore,thestateistheworstpossibledispenserofalms.Anyyet,somuchneededtobedone,andorganizationswereshowingthatmuchcouldbedoneonnotjustaneighborhoodorcitywidelevelbutanationwidebasisaswell.NationalevangelicalorganizationssuchastheYMCAandYWCAandSalvationArmywereshowingthatitwaspossibletobelargeandeffective.SocialUniversalistwhoobservedtheirsuccessarguedthatgovernment(withoutthereligiousaspect,ofcourse)coulddevelopsimilarprogramsonanall‐encompassingbasis.Wasn’tcharityfollowingtheconsolidationpathofindustry,wheregreatcorporationswithhiredmanagementwereamazingtheworldwiththeirefficientproduction?Mightthenextstepbeagovernmental“ProsperityArmy”thatwouldbeinchargeofmostcharity?Suchexpansivethinkinglargelyignored,ofcourse,theunderstandingthatthekeytopovertyfightingwasa“renewalofcharacterandachangeoftheinnermanwhichcanbebroughtaboutonlybythegraceandpowerofourLordJesusChrist.”ThosearethewordsofRichardHolz–avolunteerfromthelate1800’s.Couldthesteamshiptravelwithoutitsfurnace?BallingtonBooth,sonofthefounderoftheSalvationArmy,scoffedatschemesforreformapartfromcharacterchangeandarguedthataneducateddevilwasonlyadevilmademoreresourceful.“Hardworkandsimplereligioustruth”,inhiswords,weretheanswertopoverty.TheyWarCry,apublicationoftheSalvationArmynoted,“ThatwhenJesussaid,‘neitherdoIcondemnyou’,healsosaid,‘goandsinnomore.’”Couldapluralisticgovernmentpinpointandopposesininpeople?No.Utopianscontinuedtocry“MORE”.Theywereheard,andwerefollowed,despitetheevidenceandthehistory.Chapter8–ExcitementofaNewCenturyAnewspiritwasevidentasthe20thcenturybegan.Therewassomuchtodo!Theproblemsweregreat.Cautionarytalesabouttheeasyslideintopauperismseemedunimportantinthisnewera.Statementafterstatementputforththeviewthatmuchwasachievedduringthe19thcenturyandmuchmorecouldbeachievedinthe20th,bytakingrecenttrendstotheirlogicalextension.Sincescientificprogressduringthe19thcenturywasspectacular,socialprogressduringthe20thcouldbejustasenthralling:“withtheirmasteryofnaturethemenofthe20thcenturywilllearnhowtomasterthemselves.Theywillsolvethesocialproblems.”–proclaimedsome.StudiesinhumanevolutionandsocialprocessesweresaidtoprovideunderstandingthatrequiredreinterpretationfotheBibles,sinceGodwasnowmostvisible,“inthegreatcommonplacesoflife,innature,inthelongevolutionaryprocess.Biblicalstatementscouldnotlongerbetakenliterally.Inparticular,thenewsocialunderstandingattackedthebiblicalconceptofasinfulhumannature.Man’sbasicnaturewasnotcorrupt,butgood.Thereweresinsbutnotsin;evilactsbutnotevil.

Page 13: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

Compassioncametomeanacceptingwrongfulactivityandpostponinganypressuretochangeuntilthepersonwasinagoodenvironment.Morechangesinthinkingfollowed.Ifthekeygoalwasprovisionofmaterialaidbutnopersonalchangeintheindividualreceivingaid,programscouldbemeasuredbytheamountofmaterialtransferred;non‐quantifiableconsiderationsthatcomplicatedtheevaluationscouldbedropped.Inthenewerainwhichthestatewasseentohaveessentialresponsibility,somethinkersbegantocallforlessprivatecharity;theyarguedthatprivatecharitableeffortsmightletgovernmentoffthehook.Infact,somebegantoseetheexistenceofcharitableorganizationsasatokenofgovernmentalweaknessratherthanasignofsocialstrength–andasaslippageinuniversalism.Since,furthermore,theologicalliberalsassumedthatindividualsfreedfrommaterialpressureswouldalsobefreedfromthesinfultendenciesassumedlygrowingoutofthosepressures,thefocusincreasinglywasonmaterialneeds.SocialgospelleaderWalterRauschenbuschsaidstraightforwardly,“Godisagainstcapitalism”.Clearlynotallorevenmostchurchmemberssubscribedtothisnewthinking,butmanyofthemostarticulateandinfluentialpartsofAmericanProtestantismhuggedtheLeftandbecamethoroughlymodernmillenialists.Writersandclericswhosawutopiaaroundthecornerwerenotsatisfiedwithprodigalsonscominghomeonebyone.Thejournalisticpushandthetheologicalpullledtoattemptstobuildanationalwelfaresystem.Whenin1909thePresidentcalledforaconferenceontheCareofDependentChildren,itrepresentedalargedeparturefromformerWhiteHousepositionsheldsince1854whenFranklinPiercevetoedtheexpenditureoffederalfundsformentalhospitals.Roosevelt,incontrast,pattedthenosepokingintothetentbytellingcharityprofessionalsthatreliefwasessential,andthathedidnotopposegovernmentalwelfare.By1919,mother’swelfarepensionswereavailablein39states.HowardTaftsignedabillin1812(theUSChildren’sBureau)thatestablishedtheprecedent:thefederalgovernment,whichbeforehadtakenononlylimitedfunctionsinpublichealthandeducation,nowwasinvolvedinbroadquestionsofwelfare.Someorganizationsfoughtforfederalgrantstostatesthatsetupmaternalandchildhealthservicesinaccordancewithchildren’sbureauspecifications.Somedoctorsattackedhercampaignfor“statemedicine”andpointedtoprecedentsbeingset,buttheMaternityandInfancyActalsoknownastheSheppard‐TownerAct,becamelawin1921.Itprovidedthefirstdirectfederalchildwelfareexpenditures.TheactrepresentedtheadvancementofanideathatwouldreceivegreaterbackingintheSocialSecurityActof1935,andotherNewDealPrograms.Furthermore,governmentaloutdoorrelief,whichlate19thcenturyreformershadfoughtagainstsohard,madeacomeback.From1911to1925,governmentoutdoorreliefpaymentsin16ofthelargestcitiesincreasedfrom1.6millionto14.7milliondollars.Inaddition,theNationalFederationofSettlementscampaignedthroughoutthe1920’sfortheconstructionofgovernmenthousingprojects–“Hundredsofmillionsofdollarsoughttobedevotedtothispurpose,bymeansofwhichfind,wellplannedcommunitiescouldbedeveloped…affordingthefinestenvironmentforthedevelopmentofaphysically,mentallyandmorallysoundcitizenship.

Page 14: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

Furthermore,thegrowingcallforandincidenceofgovernmentalactionaccompaniedanewstressonprofessionalisminsocialwork.Somebegantoworrythatprofessionalswerebeingexaltedattheexpenseofthevolunteer,andwerewonderingifitisassumedthatonlyofficialswouldbepermittedtobecharitable.In1911,onecharityleaderremarkedsarcasticallythat“soonsocialworkers,likedoctors,willhavetopassanexaminationbeforetheyareallowedtopracticeuponthelivesofthepoor.”Hewasrightofcourse.OwenLovejoy,thepresidentoftheNationalConferenceofSocialWorknotedthatmostsocialworkersdidnotwishto“defendtheBible,thechurchtheflagortheConstitution.”Hearguedthatanewsocialworkreligionwasgrowing,withnewdefinitionstowordspreviouslyquiteadequatelyunderstood.Forexample,Lovejoydefinedthecommunionofthesaintsasthefellowshipofpeoplewhoaredevotedtosomething,thefellowshipofthedevoted,notthesaints…withoutspecifyingtheGodoftheBibleastheobjectofdevotion.Hearguedthatsocialworkersandtheirallieswere“socialengineerscapableofcreatingadivineorderonearthasitisheaven.Themodernsocialworker’sfaithwasanshouldbeapositive,thoughperhapsunanalyzed,confidenceintheessentialdivinityofeveryman.”FormersocialworkerturnedACLUpresidentRogerBaldwincalledfora“cooperativecommonwealth”thatwouldabolish“economicclasses,povertyandprivilege.”Asprofessionalsbegantodominatetherealmofcompassion,volunteersbegantodepart.Asthecity’sstewardswithdrewfromthedecision‐makingarena,professionalsconspiredtofurtherdiminishtheirrole,settingrestrictionsongiftsandreshapingtheprerogativesofboards.Interestedlaymenwereaslikelytobeconsignedtoadeskjobastheyweretobeassignedtoafamily,andboardswereremoldedintolittlemorethanfund‐raisingbodies.Annualreportsbecamethemiddlemen,andbondingwasreducedtodonorsreceivingphotographsofgratefulclients.Allthisledtoasensethatprivatecharitywasirrelevant.Butthechangewasnotinevitable.In1933,theformoftheold,andaconsiderablepartofthefunction,remained.But,thequestionwas:Howwereprivateprogramsdifferentfromgovernmentprograms?Weretheybasedonadifferentworld‐view,adifferentsenseofthenatureofman?Didtheyseespiritualchangeasthekeytomaterialchange,orhadtheyadoptedthebeliefthatthesumofmaniswhatheeatsandwherehelives?Thegeneralsensewasthatmanyreligiousprogramshadeffectivelybeensecularized,andwithittheexcitementofsacrificingtokeepthemgoingwasgone.Thereseemedtobenoreason,except“conservativestinginess,”toopposetheestablishmentofanew,massivegovernmentsystem.Thereseemedtobelittlereasontotakeseriouslylong‐standingconcernsaboutfederalactivities,“crowdingout”localvolunteereffort.Sadly,justastheDepressionincreaseddemand–from1929to1932–atleastfourhundredofthenationsprivatewelfareagencieswentunder.Buttheproblemsofsupplywerealsotheresultofalong‐termtrendtowardimpersonalcontribution.Philanthropyhadbecome“ascoldasthepaymentoftaxes”journalistAlanHerricknoted:“Indeedtheobjectivesofthetwoareoftenthesame”.Inshort,themovementawayfrompersonalactionwaseasywhenproblemsseemedoverwhelming,andwhenCommunityChestemphasisoncashalreadyprovided“theultimateinbureaucracy–ananonymouspublicsupportinganonymousmachinerysupportinganonymousclients.”Radicalchangewasacceptedbecausethegroundhadlongbeenprepared.TheNewDeal

Page 15: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

battlestocomewerewonontheplayingfieldsoftheologicallyliberalseminariesandinthemeetingroomsofprivatecharities.Chapter9–SellingNewDealsinOldWineskinsWithoutdoubt,theDepressionwasfar,farworsethanpreviouseconomicdislocations.Thebreadthandlongevityoftheeconomicemergencywasunprecedented,withasurgeinlegitimateneedforhelpfarexceedingthatofanypreviousrecession.4outof5applicantstoNewYork’sSocialServiceExchangeinJanuary1930wereindividualswhohadneverbeforerequestedrelief.Overallunemploymentrosefrom1.6millionin1929toahighof12.8millionin1933.Therewas,nevertheless,aremarkablewillingnesstogo“onthedole”Governmentwelfareandshamestillwereahorseandcarriageinthepopularmind.Researchersintopopularattitudesfoundanaccountantturnedditch‐diggersaying,“I’dratherstayoutinthatditchtherestofmylifethantakeonecentofdirectrelief.”ThepoliticalimpactofthesebeliefswasthatwhenevertheNewDealemphasizedstraightsubsidyofthosewhocouldwork,animositytowarditgrew.Ahalf‐centuryaftertheNewDeal,KentuckyjournalistJohnPearcerecalled,“Idon’tthinkiteveroccurredtoanyofus”thattheNewDeallegacywouldbe“awelfaresystemthattodaysupportsmillionswhohaveneitherprospectnorintentionofearningtheirownliving.”Roosevelthimselfacknowledgedthedangerofwelfareprogramsbecoming“ahabitwiththecountry”,andpledgedtoavoidit.InNovember1933Rooseveltstated,“Whenanymanorwomangoesonadolesomethinghappenstothemmentallyandthequickertheyaretakenoffthedole,thebetteritisforthemtherestoftheirlives.”Andinearly1935headded,“Wemustpreservenotonlythebodiesoftheunemployedfromdestitutionbutalsotheirself‐respect,theirself‐relianceandcourageanddetermination.Inthisbusinessofreliefwearedealingwithproperlyself‐respectingAmericanstowhomameredoleoutrageseveryinstinctofindividualindependence.MostAmericanswanttogivesomethingforwhattheyget.Thatsomething,inthiscasehonestwork,isthesavingbarrierbetweenthemandmoraldisintegration.Weproposetobuildthatbarrierhigh.”Whethersuchrhetoricwasprotectivecoloringisstilldebatedbyhistorians.Manysocialworkers,however,desiredpermanentprograms,notemergencygap‐fillers,andsocialworkwasplacedbythedepressionamongtheprimaryfunctionsofgovernment.”InFebruary1934,theAASWConferenceonGovernmentalObjectivesforSocialWorkadoptedaprogramwhichstatedthatsocialproblemsariseoutof“ourfaultydistributionofwealth.”MaryvanKleeck,nowdubbeda“highpriestess”ofsocialwelfare,praisedSovietplanningandpresentedatconferencespapersthatinsistedona“plannedeconomyasanationaleconomicobjectiveforsocialwork.”Manysocialworkersdidnotembracethisagendaatfirst,butanewframingofthesocialworkissueswasevident.EduardLindemanpresentedpaperscallingforsocialworkersto“buildanewsocietybasedontheredistributionofwealth,nationalizationofutilities,currency,creditsandmarginallands,andtheelevationofalargeportionofhousingtothestatusofpublicutility.”Thesewereradicalideas,andtogainpopularsupport,itwasvitaltopresentnewprogramsnotasradicalinnovationsbutaseithertemporaryexpedientsorsimpleexpansionsofpastprograms.

Page 16: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

EventhoughtheNewDealpaceslowedoncethecrisisofthe1930’swasoverandeventsabroadabsorbednationalattention,ideasoffuturestepscontinuedtobouncearound.Attheendofthe1930’sandduringthewarthreesubtlechangespointedAmericatowardauniversalisticwelfaresystemthatwouldnotstressworkandworthiness,asdidtheNewDealprograms,atleastintheory.AsanemphasisoncollectiveactiongrewpersonalconscienceintheUShasfallentoanewlowinourhistoryasanation.Ithasbeenlargelylosttooursightinallthedinandditherthathavebeenraisedaboutthatothermoralconcept,thesocialconscience,which,weareconstantlyreminded,hasanoblerandmorewidelyembracingfunction.And,themorewehearoftheone,thelesswehearoftheother.Asemphasisonpersonalresponsibilitydecreased,manysocialobserversbreathedasighofrelief,fortheysawnopossibilityofsuccessfulpersonalcontactwiththeurbanneedy.Impersonalgivingseemedinevitable.Manysocialworkleaders,heavilyinfluencedbyleftistideas,arguedthatanemphasisonindividualswasa“trivialandreactionary”practicethat“imposesontheindividualthecruelburdenofadaptinghimselftoapsychoticsociety.Liberaldoctrinesthatupheldtheideaofincomeasentitlement,andshowedlittleinterestinstressingworkorinnotingthedangerofpauperization,becametheconventionalwisdomamongsocialworkersandtheirallies.Duringthenext2decadesahostofstudiespurportedtoshowthatwelfarestipendsdidnotharmindividualsbyunderminingindependenceandselfrespectandthatthefederalgovernmentshouldbethenationwidedispenserofcash.Manybegantoopposeevenbackgroundchecksandinsteadproposedthatbenefits“bepaiduponaworker’sdeclarationthathewaswithoutworkandthathisfamilywasofagivensize,withoutrecoursetohumiliatinginvestigationseitherofhisownneedsandresourcesorofthoseofcloserelatives.”Greatstepstowardsacompletesocialrevolutionwereunderway,yetthatrevolutionwasstilltocome.Chapter10–Revolution–anditsHeartbreakWithdependencystillconsideredsomewhatdishonorablebythegeneralpopulation,governmentandself‐imposedrestrictionsmeantthat,aslateasthemid1960’sonlyabout½ofthoseeligibleforwelfarewerereceivingit,andmanyofthosewhowereenrolledonlytookpartialbenefits.Butakeychangetookplaceinthe60’s.Itwasnotachangeinbenefitprograms,butratherachangeinconsciousnessconcerningestablishedones,withgovernmentofficialsapprovingandevenadvocatingnotonlylargerpayoutsbutawaronshame.Twoprominentauthorswrotethatanyemphasisonpersonalresponsibilityforeconomicproblemsshouldbeopposed.Thereshouldbenopenaltyforable‐bodiedandmentallycompetentindividualswho,forwhateverreason,wereunabletoholdajoborspendtheirmoneysensibly,orotherwiserisetothechallengesofsocialresponsibility.Personalityflawshadsocialorigins,andinanyevent,“socialjustice”requiredanendtoscrutinyofbehavior,sincetheoriginofeconomicorsocialneedisfarlessimportantthanthefactofitsexistence.

Page 17: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

Vestigesofpastpracticeweretobefoughtasthedriveforuniversaleconomicandsocialsecuritycontinued.Allgroups,whetherstateorprivate,weretouniteinapushformore.AFordFoundationstudyshowedhow“Theeliminationofpovertyiswellwithinthemeansoffederal,stateandlocalgovernments.”Thereport,assumingthatamaterialfixcouldwipeoutpoverty,arguedthatpovertycouldbeabolished“simplybyastrokeofthepen.Toraiseeveryindividualandfamilyinthenationnowbelowsubsistenceincometothesubsistencelevelwouldcostbut$10billionayear.Thatislessthan2percentoftheGNP.Itislessthan10percentoftaxrevenues.”Ifmoneycouldchangewaysofthinking,thenMichaelHarringtonwasrightwhenhewrotethat“onlyoneagencyinAmericaiscapableoferadicatingboththeslumandtheslumpsychologyfromthisland;theFederalGovernment.”LyndonJohnsoncalledthefightagainstpovertyaninvestmentinthefuture.Asinthepast,thisinvestmentwillreturnitscostmanyfoldtoourentireeconomy.Excitementreignedin1964and1965duringtheimmenselegislativemovesofLBJ–TheEconomicOpportunityAct,foodstamplegislation,Medicare,Medicaid,publicworksprograms,andsoon.Drivenbysuchfaith,theWhiteHousemoodwas,inthewordsofLBJbiographerDorisGoodwin–“Passthebillnow,worryabouteffectsandimplementationlater.”Theunfortunatemainlinetheologicalmessageofthe1960’amongbothChristiansandJewswhichprevailedasthatpovertywassociallycausedandcouldthusbesociallyeliminated.Materialisticthinkingwasdominant.“Thewaytoeliminatepovertyistogivethepoorpeopleenoughmoneysothattheywon’tbepooranymore.”ThissanguinityallowedpeopletoignorethekeycontributionoftheWaronPoverty:thedeliberateattempttouncouplewelfarefromshamebychangingattitudesofbothwelfarerecipientsandthebetter‐off.Butintheend,GreatSocietylegislation,notsomuchbyextendingbenefitsasbyfundingadvocatestochangethatconsciousness,helpedseverwelfareshameinthemindsofmanydole‐holders.Whenrealityinevitablyfellshortofover‐the‐rainbowpromisesof“abolishingpoverty”,angerflared.Thepovertyprogramwas“almostworsethannothingatall.”saidDetroitMayerJeromeCavanaughashelookedoverhis“riot‐scarred”cityin1967.“We’veraisedexpectationsandhaven’tbeenabletodeliver.”Soon,TimeMagazinewasreportingsthat“theworld’srichestnationseemscaughtinaparadoxicaltrap:themoretheU.S.spendsonthepoor,thegreatertheneedseemstobetospendstillmore.Thiswasexactlywhatthoseinthelate1800’spredicted.Soonaradicalgrouppromotingwelfarerightsemerged.TheNWRO(NationalWelfareRightsOrg.)Theybegansharplycriticizinggovernmentfornotdoingenough!Theylookedforsupportfromblackchurchesandwhiteconservativetheologians.Theyalsogotsomesupportfrommainstreamold‐linechurcheswhowereslippingintheirorthodoxconvictions.TheyNWROalsofounditselfreceivingsupportfromthefederalgovernmentandlocalandstatewelfareinstitutions–theverypeopletheywereattacking!FrancisSchaefferwarnedthatChristiansshouldavoidgivingmorepowertothe“monolithicmonsterofabloatedstate,andinsteademphasizethe“compassionateuseofaccumulatedwealth”.Butfewheededthiswarning.Soon,withallthelegalhorsepowerrevvedup,rulesthatallowedcategorizationanddiscernment–tasksthatgovernmentofficialswerenotlikelytohandlewellevenwithoutenormouspressure–werenomore.Rulesthatwelfareofficials,withoutextensivehearings,coulddecideaperson

Page 18: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

employableandrequirehimtotakeajob,werestruckdown.RulesthatwomenreceivingAFDCcouldnothave“amaninthehouse”werestruckdown.Rulesthatrecipientssuspectedoffraudhadtoanswerquestionsorelsefacepossiblelossofsubsidy,werestruckdown.Awelfareofficialwhodemandedrecipientstopresentinformationthatmightreducetheirgrantswasseenasviolatingtheir5thAmendmentrights.Andwelfarebenefitswereseenasanewformofproperty,deservingthesamelegalprotectingasearnedorinheritedproperty!Sit‐in’sandsleep‐in’satwelfaredepartmentsmadethelivesofadministratorsdifficult,andtheyoftentendedtocavein.Theresultwasawelfarepopulationexplosion.Acceptancesrosesharplyinthemiddleandlate60’s,andclientprotestswereundoubtedlyonecause.Duringthe50’srollsroseby17%.Duringthe60’s,107%,with75%ofthatcomingjustfrom65‐68–whichwasatimeofgreatprosperityanddiminishingunemployment.Instantexplanationsforthatexplosionvaried:somespokeofcontinuedmigrationoftheblackpoorfromtheSouthandothersnotedthedeteriorationofblackfamilystructure.Allofthesehadanimpact,butstudiesshowedthat,surprisingly,thesizeofthepoolofeligiblepeopledidnotchangemuchduringthoseyears.Themajorchangewasthatamuchhigherpercentageofthosewhowereeligiblesuddenlydecidedtotakeadvantageofwelfarebenefits.Anincreaseinformalbenefitlevelsandasimplificationoftheprocessofenrollmenthadsomeimpact,butofficialsobservedthataprimereasonforthesurgewasa“changingoutlookamongmanypoorandthenearpoor.Theyhadbeentaughtbyorganizersthatwelfareis“Nothingtobeashamedof.”Yet…asthesmokeclearedin1971,TimeMagazinelookedatthepricetagincash,andotherslookedatthepriceinlives.BothgroupsnotedthatGreatSocietycompassion“satisfiesnoone;underthesystemitisunblessedbothtogiveandtoreceive.”ChapterEleven–Questionsofthe70’and80’sBy1980itwasclearthattheentitlementrevolutionhadcreatedseveralbiglosers.LBJ’sadvisorswarnedin1964thatthepovertyrate–intheABSENSEofaction–couldbeashighas13%by1980.After16yearsofmultibillion‐dollarprograms,thepovertyrateattheendofthatyearwas–13%.Lackofmobilitywasnotcausedbylackofopportunity–thedramaticsuccessesofimmigrantsfromAsisandCubaduringrecentdecadesshowthat.Thosewhoadoptedthetraditionalwork‐hard‐and‐risepatternofstayingoutofthewelfaresystemusuallysucceededinrising–bynative‐bornAmericanswhotookadvantageofthepreferredliberalitystayedput.Anotherbigloserwastheremnantofprivateorganizationswhocontinuedtochallengepeople.EarlVautin,amissionleadernotedthat“rescuemissionsareseenasjustanotherwelfareprogram.Themenwhocometousconfuseuswiththewelfaredepartment.Amanfeelsthemissionisnotreallydoingitsjobunlesshegetswhathethinksheissupposedtoget.Nowthisistheattitudeofthe‘client’andnottheattitudeofamanseekingloveandfriendshipandspiritualhelp.Theearlymissiondidnothavethistocontendwith–thisfeelingthat‘theworldowesmealiving.’Thosewhocome,iftheywanttoimprovetheirlives,mustbepreparedtotakethefirststep.Theattritionrateishigh.ThemissioncouldeasilykeepamanlongerbyputtinglessofanemphasisonreligionorbyrelaxingsomeofitsotherrulesButfew,ifany,menwouldberehabbedeithersociallyorspiritually.”

Page 19: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

Thosewhoreceivedfoodandlodgingwereexpectedtodosimplechoressuchasmakingbeds,cleaningfloors,orhelpinginthekitchen–butmanyhomelessmentoldVautinthatother“helpingplaces”requirednothing.Themissioncontinueditsone‐on‐oneapproach,buttheWaronPovertydemandedmassivebodycounts.The3rdbigloserintheentitlementrevolutionwasmarriage.Priortothe1960’s,marriagewasbothasocialandeconomiccontract,viewedineconomicterms,itwasancompassionateantipovertydevicethatofferedadultsaffiliationandchallengeasitprovidedtwoparentsforraisingchildren.Inthe1960’sanunmarriedwomanwhobecamepregnantusuallywouldgetmarried;85%ofteenagedmothersinthe50’sweremarriedbythetimetheirbabieswereborn.Thosewhodidnotwanttomarryhadasecondacceptableoption–adoption.Fewerthan1/10pregnantwomenchosesingleparenthood,fortheyfearedsocialostracismandlackedinstitutionalandfinancialsupport.Inthe60’showever,asgovernmentalobligationstosinglemothersincreased,maritalobligationsdecreased.Overall,culturalchangesthatglorifiedunrestrainedsexualityminimizedtheimportanceofmarriage,andacceptedsingleparentingandeasydivorce,wereatremendousblowtothepoor.Dreamsdiedquicklyamongsomesocialworkerswhohadbeenintheforefrontofchange.Soon,theywerereportingcompassionfatigue.Yearafteryear,newidealistsreplacedburnedoutvictims.Dreamsalsodiedascompassionfatiguedeepenedamongmanywhohadatleastpracticedthe“compassion”ofthecheckbook.Individualgivingasaproportionofpersonalincomedropped13%between1960and1976.Theproportionofphilanthropicgivingdevotedtosocialwelfaredeclinedfrom15%to6%.Bythemid70’s,governmentsspent10timesasmuchonsocialservicesasnonprofitagenciesandthenonprofitagenciesthemselvesreceivedhalfoftherevenuesfromgovernments.Dreamsespeciallydiesamongmanypoorindividualsthemselves.Theysawthatmasspauperismwasacceptedandpressuretoleavewelfarewasveryslight.Sometimes,those(formerlyknownas‘worthypoor’)whowerewillingtoputoffimmediategratificationandsacrificeleisuretimeinordertoremainindependent,werecalledchumpsratherthanchamps.Astheentitlementrevolutioncreatedmoreandmorenegativeresults,someacademicsandjournalistsredoubledtheirdefensesofit,butotherssearchedforguiltyparties.Itwaseasytoblamebureaucracy.Itwasclearlyaproblem,butwouldlesspaperworkhavemadethesystemwork?No,becausebehindthepaperstooda‘povertywall’thatreducedincentiveandcontributedtothecreationofa“newcaste,the‘DependentAmericans’”.Compassionbecamenothingmorethanacatchphrasetotrytoraisemoney.MickeyKausinTheNewRepublicnotedthat“AmericanswerenowsupposedtohavecompassionfortheunmotivateddelinquentwhowouldrathersmokePCPthanwork.Compassionmakesfewdistinctions–wereallinCuomo’sfamily–whichiswhyapoliticsbasedonmass‐producedcompassionleadsnaturallytotheindiscriminatedispensingofcashinasortofall‐purposesocializedUnitedWaycampaign.Compassionhasbecometheall‐purposeDemocraticpassword.Thewordshouldbebanned.”

Page 20: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

Howeverthewordonlygainedpopularity,especiallyrelatedtotheissueofhomelessness.Throughthedecadeofthe70’stheWashingtonPostcontinuedtousetheword“compassion”asaeuphemismfor“moreheavilyfunded”.ProfessorDwightLeeconcluded“Thenotionthatcompassiontowardthepoorrequiresfavoringexpansionofgovernmenttransferprogramshasachievedthestatusofrevealedtruth.”In1985,LarryBurkett,apopularevangelicalwriteroneconomicissues,called,‘indiscriminategiving’ofgovernmentwelfarethecauseof‘permanentdependenceandpoverty.’Sadly,theevangelicalorchestrawasproducingcacophonyjustasnewharmoniesweredesperatelyneeded.TheNewYorkTimesprofiledthefrustrationof“mainline”ministersininner‐citychurches:“MosthavebeeninfluencedbyLiberationTheologywhichfusesChristianandMarxistutopianism.”Asthe80’scametoanend,theword“compassion”wasbeingusedevenmorelooselythanever.Inonemonthin5majornewspapers,thewordwasused300times,largelyasasynonymfor“leniency”.TheOxfordDictionarygives,astheoriginaldefinitionofcompassion,“sufferingtogetherwithanother,participationinsuffering”Butinthe20thecenturyaseconddefinitionbecamecommon:“thefeelingoremotion,whenapersonismovedbythesufferingofanother,andbyadesiretorelieveit.”Thereisaworldofdifferencebetweenthetwodefinitions.Onedemandsaction,theotherafeeling,thatrequiresawillingnesstosendacheck.Wordsshapeourideas,andtheshiftingdefinitionofcompassionhassoshapedourunderstandingthattheNewYorkTimesusuallyasticklerforpreciselanguage,printsoxymoronicphrasessuchas“compassionateobserver.”WecelebrateAmericaasacompassionate,caringsociety,butmostofusareactuallystingy–notbecausewerefusetospendmoregovernmentmoney(wearedoingquitewellthere–thankyou),butbecausewenolongerofferthepoorourtimeorachallenge.Ourwillingnesstodososhowswhetherwecareforhearts,minds,andsouls,orjustbodies–andasasociety–wefailthetest.Thenextchapterwilltakethetwomostdifficultproblems–abandonedwomenandchildren,andhomelessness,andshowhowadifferentviewofcompassioncanmakeamajordifferenceinlives.Chapter12–PuttingCompassionintoPracticeNowherehasthemovementawayfromtruecompassion,anditsemphasisonaffiliationandbonding,beenmoreevidentandmoretragicthanintheareaofunmarriedpregnancy.Theprovisionofpublicassistancefacilitatedmovementtoindependenthouseholdheadship,particularlywhenincreasedbenefitswereprovidedtowomenforestablishingseparatehouseholds.Bytheendofthe80’sthiswasacleardisaster,especiallyforpoorblacks.ColumnistWilliamRaspberrywrote,“IfIcouldofferasingleprescriptionforthesurvivalofAmerica,andparticularlyofblackAmerica,itwouldbe:Restorethefamily.”

Page 21: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

Youcansendinsocialworkersandschoolteachersandclergytotellayoungmalethatwhenhegrowsupheshouldbeagoodfathertohischildren,buthedoesnotknowwhatitmeansunlesshe’sseenit.Millionsofchildrendonotknowandwillneverknowwhatitmeanstohaveafather.Theydonotknowanyonewhohasafather.Nevertheless,attheendofthe80’sprogramscontinuedtosubsidizeandencourageattemptsatautonomy.WhatyoungwomenneedistoughloveANDsupport.Therearescatteredexamplesofthathappening,buttheyarerare.WorkingwithyoungfathersImoredifficultbecausetheyrarelyseethemselvesashelpless.Infact,evenwhenhomeless,theyhaveaccesstoenormousamountsofhelpofferedformallyandinformally.ShortlybeforeChristmas’89,aWashPostreporterinterviewed8menlivinginatentmadebytyingatarpoveragratethatspewedhotair.Henotedthemenhadsleepingbags,gloves,scarves,boots,andlotsoffood–partytrayswithchickenandturkey,fruit,boxesofcrackers,popcorn,cannedgoods–alldonatedbypassersby.Someofthemenwerefathers,buttheywerenotspendingChristmaswiththeirchildren.Mostsheltersprovidehelptoall,regardlessofcircumstances.In1990,oneshelterinNYwasreprimandedforproposingthatvisitorstothe‘mens’centernotbeallowedtocrossdress.Theyweretoldthat“theyhaveamisconceptionaboutwhatsheltersareabout.Theyarenottheretoshapethebehavioroftheclients.”Wealsoneedtoconsidertheissuesofmentalillnessregardingthehomeless.Estimatesneedtobetakenskeptically,andweneedtomovefromsentimentalitytoclearthinking.TheDSM‐IIIRlistsalcoholandsubstanceabuseasamentaldisorder,asindeedtheyare,butnotinthepsychiatricsense.But,itshouldbepointedoutthatmentalhealthbudgetsdependondiagnosingpatientsasmentallyill,sosomeonewhoisbasicallynastyoraggressiveisnowlabeledasIntermittentExplosiveDisorder(DSM312.34)Abouttheonlydiagnosisrarelyseenis“None”DSMV71.09)Thesolutiontomostoftheseproblemsonlyseemsdifficultbecauseofapervasiveunwillingnesstocategorize.Basiccategorizationshowsthattheseveralhundredthousandhomelessinclude,ononeend,thosewhoarementallyillandcannotfunctionbythemselves,andontheotherend,thoseabandonedwomenandchildrenwhoarenotyetwithinthewelfaresystem,alongwithafewhard‐luckmenwhowouldfunctionperfectlywelliftheyhadbetterhousingandajob.TheMumblingMajorityofthehomeless,however,aremenwhoarealone,orwhohavebeentolditisfinetobealone,andwhohavebecomeusedtoreceivingsubsidyintheirchosenlifestyle.Mostofthehomelessaresubstanceabusers.Manyhavefamilies,butdonotwanttobewiththem.Thegreatertheservices,thelargerthenumber.Thegreaterthemonetaryvalueofthebenefits,thelargerthenumberofpeoplewillingtoconsiderhomelessnessasaviableoption.ManyAmericanshavenotattainedthisinsightbecausetheyrelyonthemediatedcompassionofferedbyjournalistswhoarephilosophicallycommittedtoSocialUniversalismandareprofessionallyinvolvedwiththeproductionofsentimentality.TheGospelMissionininnerD.C.hasworkedwonders.DirectorLincolnBrookssays,“wechallengethem.Wedon’tpatthemonthebackandsayit’ssociety’sfault.Theyhavetoownuptotheirfaults.Thereisnofreeride.Ifaguy’sdrunkandcomesinthedoor,hecancomein,buthis

Page 22: The Tragedy of American Compassion PDF

bottlestaysout.Ifhe’sobnoxious,wemakehimwalkaroundtheblockuntilhesobersup.Useus,butdon’tabuseus,wesay.We’relongsuffering,butwewillconfrontthealcoholic.Sometimeswetakeapictureoftheguypassedoutonthestreet,andshowittohimwhenhesobersuptochallengehim.It’ssickeningtoseeagrownmanbummingandbegging.Wehavetoputthepressureonthem.Thisisdifficult,becauseonlyafewblocksawayisanothershelterthatappliesnopressure.Again,badcompassiondrivesoutgood.Chapter13–ApplyingHistoryWhenthepilgrimscametothenewworldin1620,theysawbeforethem“ahideousanddesolatewilderness.”Theysetaboutturningwildernessintoneighborhood,andspentmostoftheirdaysatworkandtheirnightswithfamily.TheyreadtheBible,includingaccountsofGodrejectingthosewhorefusedtochange,andblessingthosewhodid.Compassionwasamutualobligationbetweenman,Godandfellowman.Individualsandchurchescaredforwidowsandorphans,andotherswhoweredestitutebydisasterorunabletohelpthemselves.Thosewhowantedtohelpknewhowtodosoeffectively.Theyformedorganizationstoexpandneighborhoodandmakesurewildernessdidnotcreepbackin.Theyemphasizedpersonalcontactwiththepoorandrefusedtosettleforfeed‐and‐forgetpractices.Effortswereeffective.Butthroughoutthe19thcentury,therockofcompassionunderwenterosion.Itwasmostlytheologicalerosion:thebeliefthatsinfulman,lefttohimself,wouldreturntowilderness,seemedharshlypessimistic.Overtime,itbecamecustomarytoarguethatonlythegovernmenthadthepotentialtocreateanenvironmentthatwouldsaveall,andthosethatweretrulycompassionateshouldrallybehindthecreationofnewprograms.Inthe20thcentury,thewaronpovertywasadisasternotsomuchbecauseofnewprogramsbutbecauseoftheemphasisonentitlement.Effortsatcategorizingthepoorintoworthyorunworthywereviewedascruel.Thosewhoopposedtaxationtohelpthepoorwerealsoviewedascruel.Asitstands,manygovernmentagenciesandprivatecharitiesaredispensingaidindiscriminately;indoingsotheyignorethemoralandspiritualneedsofthepoorandareunabletochangelives.It’stimewestartmanagingbyresults,evenifthatmeansturningsocialservicestothoseprivateinstitutionsthatemphasizechallengingcompassion.Therearenoshortcutsinfightingpoverty.It’stimetolearnfromthewarmheartsandhardheadsofearliertimes,andtobringthatunderstandingintoourownlives.