“I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.” Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, as a doctor leads her away to a mental institution
There was a presentation in my book club a few years ago in which we discussed the difficulties faced by Miss Bates in Jane Austen’s book Emma. Miss Bates is an aging spinster who was raised a gentlewoman and cares for her elderly mother who is mostly deaf. The longer she lives, the less she has. She is surrounded by wealthy neighbors (Emma Woodhouse, Mr. Knightly, and Frank Churchill) who visit her and provide charitable acts toward her, giving her a hind-quarter of pork, fixing her mother’s spectacles, inviting her to events, and offering her rides to community gatherings. But none of these things put her back on equal footing with them, despite her fading status. She must rely on them to remember her, to think of her needs, to be available to help her, and she doesn’t really get a say in what help they offer her. This entire system depends on the wealthy being thoughtful, nearby and available, and she must exhibit gratitude or their help might dry up.
While religious people often talk about the importance of charity, it’s not a good substitute for human rights, public goods or shared responsibilities. Structures, like governments, that routinely fail to meet basic needs of citizens are insufficient. Here are some examples of why charity fails:
Charity is voluntary. People’s needs are not voluntary, but donor generosity is. Some people have more needs than others due to financial insecurity, medical needs, aging, being victims of crime, and natural disasters. For example, a food bank can be valuable and helpful, but its capacity to help depends on donations, volunteers, economic conditions, the storage and distribution centers, and the priorities of the people in charge. Sometimes people donate too much of the wrong types of things or donate expired foods.
Charity is uneven. Charitable giving follows emotion, visibility and social norms. People are prone to give to children, disaster victims, veterans, people whose personal stories are compelling, and causes they personally identify with. They are often less enthusiastic about causes that are complicated, invisible, chronic, expensive, or politically controversial. There is often a mismatch between what people need and what people are willing to fund.
Charity is in the hands of the powerful. Powerful people have more resources at their disposal. Many wealthy donors are more likely to want to fund something they can put their name on: a building, a hospital, a foundation. They also might not want to fund something for idiosyncratic reasons. The preferences of donors determines who gets help, not which causes are most worthwhile or where the needs are greatest. This makes charity oligarchic, not democratic.
Charity changes the relationship between the giver and receiver. Those receiving charity can feel degraded by the process. They generally do not feel equal to the one giving. Receiving charity may make someone feel grateful, but the benefactor is always in a better position than the beneficiary. Even when a donor is exceptionally kind and thoughtful, the receiver is like to feel indebted, and sometimes will feel shame or loss of dignity for having to ask. By contrast, receiving public benefits does not trigger feelings of obligation toward the giver since we all participate in society.
Charity treats symptoms, but may leave causes intact. If there’s a shortage of affordable housing, a charitable program might offer rental assistance or provide housing shelter or food, but not address the underlying problems of low wages, healthcare costs, zoning restrictions, distribution of wealth, or housing shortages.
Charity benefits the giver without changing the system. Those who give feel the pride and magnanimity of being charitable whether or not their donations are very helpful to those in need. This was a problem identified by my employer when I was working in Utah. Our charitable donations in the SLC office were the lowest in the nation for our large company, and the reason was because so many Utah employees felt tapped out by donating 10% to the church rather than donating to charitable causes. They let the church make those decisions for them, and in some cases, the church has done great humanitarian work, but they also don’t provide any transparency and reserve the right to use donations as they see fit, regardless the category in which the donation is made. In other words, you may have donated to causes you disagree with, such as paying Kirton-McConkie to write legal briefs to block the rights of women and LGBTQ people, but you also felt “good” about your donation because you trusted the organization and they were not accountable to you. Feeling morally good because of a charitable donation you made can make you feel less inclined to address the systems that keep people in need. (And of course, the church isn’t the only charitable organization with a transparency problem).
Charity vanishes when it’s most needed. When the economy is bad, charitable donations decrease as everyone struggles to make ends meet.
Charity is paternalistic. Perhaps you’ve heard people say “I’ll give food but not cash to a panhandler because I don’t want them to spend it on drugs or alcohol.” You’ve doubtless heard the expression “beggars can’t be choosers.” The meaning behind these sentiments is clear; the one asking for help has to take what they are given and does not have the luxury of determining how to solve their own problems. The donor is always the decision maker.
Charity asks “what am I will to give you?” Justice asks “What do we owe each other?” Good society needs both types of thinking, along with empathy. When society asks religious or charitable organizations to substitute for social provision, it also allows them to dictate who gets help, under what conditions, and according to their own definition of worthiness.
- How do you see charity supplementing government programs?
- Do you think there is too much reliance on religion to fill the gaps left by modern society?
- What would you do to strike the right balance?
- Have you seen charity fail?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I suppose it’s fair to take a quick peek at the LDS charity system (by which I mean what we commonly call the LDS welfare system, not LDS Charities). At the local level, it is run by bishops, who decide who gets help and how much and in what form — and who doesn’t. Bishops don’t get much training or guidance in how to make these decisions. Result: it’s hit or miss who gets help and who doesn’t. Who a bishop thinks “deserves” help and who doesn’t. And for how long.
I’m willing to grant that most bishops have good intentions and generally make good decisions. But there is no transparency or accountability. You, me, and every other Mormon rely on personal experience, reports from friends or family, or anecdotal reports we read about online for info about how things actually work. We get little or nothing in terms of official accounts or reliable media reports of how the details of the system work: what guidance is given for who gets what or doesn’t, whether there is any review or feedback given to bishops, how inconsistent the system is between various wards and stakes, and so forth.
LDS leadership wants everyone to have warm feelings about the system in general, but know little or nothing about the messy details of how the system actually works in the thousands of individual cases. Or of how the burdens and benefits are distributed among stakes (I’m sure some stakes are net givers and some are net takers, but good luck finding any official report identifying specific stakes who are givers or takers — and shouldn’t we the financial contributors to the system know this info?).
My high school discussion wondered about England’s artificial class system, and how people of status, like Miss Bates, expected a genteel life of passive income, such as by collecting rents or by marrying someone who had money, but who could not and would not embarrass themselves by working for a living, and how those people and their children in the next generation fell from their genteel station back into the pool of the unknown masses. While there may have been some sympathy in my high school class for the young adults who were on the edge of secretly losing their genteel station, there was no sympathy for the system that produced this artificiality. We compared and contrasted some of Jane Austen’s characters (and portrayal of characters) with some of Charles Dickens’ characters (and portrayal of characters), and saw real differences.
Or, to put it differently, in my class we would not have used Emma to teach the virtue of Christian charity. Maybe my teacher had somewhat of a realist or Marxist bent.
I view charity like I see First Aid. When someone breaks their arm, has an ear infection, is bleeding out…. get them to the nearest hospital to be stabilized and treated. Likewise, when a person shows up at a food pantry, or with an eviction notice or a utility shut-off letter…. let’s make sure they get fed and housed. Immediate needs require immediate responses.
To continue my comparison: the really difficult work comes when the health issue is chronic or debilitating or expensive. Now we’ve moved beyond Band aids and Advil. Caring for and rehabilitating the *individual* rather than the *situation* requires a whole lot more ongoing work than most of our charity systems are set up to handle. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the man beaten and robbed was not only tended on the road where he was found but then the Samaritan also paid the innkeeper for his ongoing care. Christians should use this as a model; both immediate needs AND longer-term needs should be supported in our charity ministries.
Side note: my husband served as bishop for 6+years, covering the years before/during/after Covid. The church’s Presiding Bishop gave a broadcast to bishops in the early days of the pandemic, emphasizing that the church has LOTS of money, the bishops needed to be MORE generous in supporting the individuals and families in their wards and communities. His take-away (or was it *my* take-away?) was that the church has plenty and it was time to spread it around as needed. As bishop, he provided support to active member families, non-participating families, non-members who were part of our community… he felt his charge as bishop was to bless the lives of every person in our ward boundaries. One last thing, he also authorized our RS president to grant any/all food orders and promise up to $500 support for any reason to any ward member, no questions asked. (yes, we could go off on a tangent that women’s authority in the church always comes via a man – a discussion for another day)
At the tail end of being a bishop; I have always been of the thought that I’d rather give at least once to an individual, even though I am being taken advantage. I have had numerous occasions over the years where we have found that we were being taken for a ride and were then able to cut off an abusive individual, the church can afford the gamble in those instances, so that our decisions are not at the cost of someone who is very much in need. I’d rather ere on generosity than not. I will say, that running the local welfare program is one of the largest drains on a bishop, and I am not referring to the time spent. It is an emotional and spiritual drain to try to make the decisions and provide the help. You want to help anyone that asks that has genuine need, but you also want to help them recover and get out on their own.
I will easily “make it rain” for a participating member/family, but most utilizing the church welfare system are “unknown” members. These members are the largest beneficiaries of the church welfare system in my experience. I have spent nearly 20 years helping to administer the program and that is largely the “clientele.” I have no problem with that statistic.
Someone on W&T pointed out that the church is very much for the “middle class” in order to be a full participant. I agree with that sentiment when you live in a first world country or area. That is due to tithing and time required fulfilling callings and assignments. A person that is having difficulty making ends meet normally does not have the time or the money for regular activity. The church is going need to make adjustments for the near and long term to maintain activity levels, especially outside of Utah. Utah wards and stakes have plenty of people to provide unpaid clergy, but outside of lds saturated areas, all must take a part to keep things going, and with the push now for “the covenant path” many will not be able to keep up. So where do they go for spiritual sanctuary? The only way to help in that regard, is to soften some of the requirements. I’ve been able to do that with a few people, but what happens when I’m released? It is “bishop roulette” who you get for your ward.
Other points to consider: Bishops have been told to not provide church welfare services to non-members, with the exception of “rare circumstance.” Also, a letter was just released that bishops can only pay housing costs for 3 months. 4 months or more, he must counsel with the Stake President, 7 or more the SP must counsel with the Area Authority. So SLC is tightening the purse strings.
My $1 opinion and experience. Cheers –
Love this discussion. However, it is love that never fails or agape, Giving alms is included but not conclusive.
I’m serving as a stake financial clerk for several years; whether I’m on the “tail end” like 17RRider I do not know. But, everything he says about the church welfare system rings true, based on my monthly reviews of stake financial statements. The money does tend to mostly go to people who are at the margins of congregations; people who probably attend at least occasionally but rarely have a high profile in their wards. I tend to make note of how much total is coming in and going out every month at the stake level largely out of curiosity. The statements are formatted in such a way as to make that hard to do, intentionally I think. I really think they don’t want bishops to feel bound to a budget in the way that they are with activity budgets. There are wards in my stake that consistently run surpluses and others that run deficits. The stake itself has surplus months and deficit months, but generally I’d say we’re in the ballpark of spending most of what we take in most of the time.
I’m very supportive of the fast offering system and what it does, but let’s not mistake the system for something that it isn’t, which is a solution to large scale poverty, or long-term challenges faced by individuals. A voluntary donation system based on the notion of the cost of two meals every month just can’t solve those problems. Some people will never be able to support themselves. I think this is one interpretation of Jesus’ words that “the poor ye always have with you”. I think caring for the poor ought to be viewed as both an individual and collective obligation. We as humanity have to figure out what we’re going to do with those poor among us because the problem will always be too big for any individual to solve. There are a lot of different ways to try to solve this. Probably a perfect solution doesn’t exist, but I would be hard pressed to find anything that has been more successful than people forming democratic systems of government that tax themselves and spend some of that on a safety net for those who need it. Reasonable people can disagree on and debate the appropriate size and scope of such a system, level of taxation, and means of preventing abuse. But surely to say no such systems should exist at all is to condemn at least some members of our society to a dire level of poverty that we ought to find unacceptable. I challenge anyone who believes that to propose a better solution, and show evidence that it has worked somewhere in the past, because I don’t believe it has.
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” Traditional Proverb. Personally, after a lifetime of being preached to (and guilted about) the poor and less fortunate; and – giving a great deal away in my personal and organizational “offerings” to help – I’ve come full circle all the way back to this traditional bit of wisdom. With the monumental level of graft, corruption, theft, misuse of funds, lack of personal accountability, laziness and grift everywhere we turn – I’m simply done. I focus on caring for my own. Period. I have zero confidence in government and any other organizational management of “funds for the poor”. I will put no more “in the trough”.
ji: A few quick points. Austen herself definitely was being critical of the social system that forced a Miss Bates to rely on her neighbors’ charity rather than allowing her a way to support herself, and Emma is full of anti-class commentary, primarily on behalf of women. Like Miss Bates, Jane Austen and her sister Cassandra were reduced to living off the charity of relatives (her married brothers) because women were mostly not allowed to work or own property, and the amounts she made from her writing were not going to support her.
Also in Emma, Mrs Elton tries to strong-arm Jane Fairfax (Miss Bates’ niece) into becoming a governess for a wealthy family, which she steadfastly opposes, partly on the grounds that she shrinks back in horror from the “flesh trades” (putting being a governess on par with slavery or prostitution), and of course partly because she’s (spoiler alert) secretly engaged to someone who will only have money if his wealthy aunt dies before she realizes he plans to marry someone of whom she would disapprove because she’s not wealthy.
So, while it’s true that landowning men in the British system would shrink from the idea of doing labor, whether the women wanted to do so or not was irrelevant–they couldn’t even do that if they chose, not without a husband or male benefactor. Hello, Handmaid’s Tale.
17RRider: You said bishops have been told to only help non-members in rare circumstances, which is kind of what I thought was the case, but about five years ago, we had an employee who was living out of her truck with her disabled husband and adult son (and a cat!), and while we were taking donations for her, a man from the ward who had been a bishop previously said that the church would pay to get them set up, no questions asked, and no pressure to join or attend. That surprised me, but I gave her the reference, and they did get set up in an apartment. They are by no means middle class, but they are definitely doing much better now, five years later. She’s got them on the right benefits due to her son’s disability, and her husband’s benefits (he was injured on the job and unable to work), and she also was able to upgrade her job and get her son in a program. She stops by our office to catch up every couple of months. So, the church does provide help to individuals if they are made aware, but I can’t say what the limits are on that.
grizzerbear55: It is difficult to know which organizations (including government) are providing relief to the poor that is sustainable and valuable and not being sold to the highest bidder / grifter. I understand the fatigue. Whenever I hear of a charity that was embezzled from, a government agency that was defrauded, or a recipient who gamed the system, I always think there has to be a better way. I also feel for those whose children grow up without enough, and who also feel shame for being poor. It’s one reason I think it’s so important that we have the right kind of oversight and restrictions on charities (requiring transparency) and on government programs.
“There is often a mismatch between what people need and what people are willing to fund”
I think we’re a punitive society. Our societal view of justice requires punishment for those who violate society norms. The undeserving poor must face retribution. The nonconforming(especially these days, gender)deserve condemnation and censure. The “wrong” sort of immigrant are animals who need penning. Pardons are for the right sort of people, those who can pay.
Government programs that treat causes rather than symptoms must be stopped because they reward the wicked
Perhaps I am wrong, but maintaining “the natural order of things” require state sanctioned pogroms. Charity, such as it exists, must support this system,
Susanne Neilson: No. If those needing assistance (regardless of where they fit within societal norms) come here with violence, rot, decay and destruction – we certainly ARE NOT compelled to support these things. To do so (in these conditions) is nothing more than Suicide by Empathy; and ultimately, that doesn’t help anyone.
“Why should God reward you if you love only the people who love you? Even the tax collectors do that!”
grizzerbear55
Case in point. Don’t forget they are also dirty and smelly. And since they eat treasured pets, we can cancel due process.
There’s a thing about rats, the real ones Rattus rattus and Rattus norvegicus, where they react to other rats in a trap and try to help them out. I’ll be sure to pass on to them the advice about empathy, since I certainly don’t want them in my house..
Suzanne: while I acknowledge your over the top Virtue Signalling (Well done). There is a HUGE difference between smelling bad and being dirty; and bringing violence to our streets. Perhaps to support your position, you could report on how many immigrating young men you are currently housing and caring for.
@grizzetbesr55
That’s such a bizarre attempt at a gotcha. The vast majority of immigrants don’t want to move in with Americans and be waited on hand and foot by them. They want to live lives that are pretty similar to the ones everyone else does.
Have I volunteered my time to help immigrants in ways they need? Yes. Have I spent thousands of dollars of my own money to help immigrants? Also yes. But none of that is really relevant because I reject your implied premise that people are only allowed to have empathy for people they’ve personally sacrificed greatly for.
This post was close to perfect.
The comments have been in line with the post for the most part or illustrated why the post was needed.
When we lived in Singapore, we had a live-in domestic helper from the Philippines. This is part of the culture in Singapore, and the lack of pre-made foods combined with the amount of business travel required (and the expectation for working long hours) made this necessary, even though we felt kind of weird about it. We offered to send her home during holidays and vacations, and although she went once, in future trips she preferred not to go home. She explained that there were a lot of expectations on her financially because she was the wealthy one in her family. Going home meant she had to buy everyone presents, but was also expected to labor on the farm during her “vacation,” and the older members of the family got to boss her around, something she was starting to dislike after working for Americans who aren’t usually like that (and we weren’t). She was also responsible to pay for her brother to go to university, something she wasn’t allowed to do. She and her sister had hopes and dreams to open their own shop together, and she wanted to save up for that, but trips home depleted her savings even though we paid to fly her there.
When I talked to her about her future, she would get tears in her eyes. She said other families she worked for (we were her first American family) didn’t talk like that or ask what she hoped for herself. To me, that mindset is what sets us apart as Americans. We assume everyone has hopes and dreams for financial independence, to better our lives, to live our dreams, and to escape the burdens of culture, family, or the past that make those dreams impossible. There were other things that I learned made us very different (our kids wanted to be independent to show they were capable, she nearly fell over when she saw that I knew how to use a sewing machine to make Barbie clothes for my daughter, and she was completely blown away that a ruined meal didn’t mean she was punished when the mistake was almost always my inability to translate a recipe into terms she could follow).
When I look at people who come to the US to improve their lives, I see this same mix of cultural entanglements, the past, family obligations and expectations, but also the reason they came–to rise above those things, even though the pull is strong. In the movie The Big Sick, we see the protagonist, a Pakistani man whose parents came to America to improve their son’s prospects, trying to avoid an arranged marriage and live the life of an American, but his parents don’t understand. He finally tells them that if they wanted a Pakistani son, then why did they move to America? They now have an American son, and he can’t live under Pakistani cultural rules and expectations. That’s why they brought him here after all. It’s such a great movie. I really highly recommend it if you haven’t seen it.
Love that a Jesus quote was voted down.
Proving everything one needs to know about kkkonservatives…
Former Nonbinary Sunbeam: I applaud you for the work you claim to have done for immigrants in need – all the while (knowing full well) that you’re not able to speak authoritatively about (most immigrants). That declaration is simply hyperbole. And, to suggest that one can’t have some empathy for those “they have not sacrificed for” is simply nonsense. As with most things in life, words and actual outcomes and behaviors are often two different things. Yes, many claim to come here “for a better life” – and (sadly, not long after) one can see the results of their desires; with decay, destruction, violence, lawlessness and filth. Is this everyone? Of course not….but, one can use their own eyes and their own (local) experiences to make pretty solid judgements. Your “bleeding heart” can sometimes be celebrated – but the World (and Nature itself) will often force reality back upon all of us. Often times…rather painfully.
vajra2: you cheapen yourself (and your intellect) with this nonsense. The KKK was originally founded by Southern Democrats; as I’m sure you know. This is just childish nonsense. As for the “Jesus Quote”….I’m not looking to you for spiritual guidance; and most likely never will.
grizzerbear55
I suspect many of us here can appreciate how complicated and frustrating these issues can be. I’m genuinely curious what you hope to accomplish by participating in the conversations at W&T.
I think there is real value in sharing different perspectives and explaining the experiences or reasoning that have led us to our beliefs. Disagreement can be productive, and strong disagreement is sometimes necessary. But as Joseph Grenny argues in Crucial Conversations, meaningful dialogue and influence are difficult to achieve when conversations become hostile or contemptuous.
By all means, share what you believe and why you believe it. Challenge ideas, point out weaknesses in arguments, and offer a different perspective. But insults and belittling rarely persuade anyone, and they tend to make meaningful conversation more difficult for everyone involved.
grizzerbear55: I don’t know whether you know this or not, but the Southern Democrats who founded the KKK are now the MAGA base of the GOP thanks to the Southern Strategy in which the GOP sold its soul to racist southerners. It’s shocking to me as someone who grew up just north of the Mason-Dixon line to see people in rural PA flying a Confederate Flag. Our predecessors were on the Underground Railroad and defeated the confederacy by burning down the bridge that linked York and Lancaster counties across the Susquehanna River rather than letting the South advance. How can they now celebrate that racist, secessionist enterprise that continues to plague our great nation? It makes no sense to me at all.
Todd S. Good Counsel. However, it should be counsel followed by all. Perhaps – even some of you should critique yourselves once in a while. And, unfortunately, over the past few years Wheat and Tares (while once vital, interesting and engaging – on primarily religion related issues) has basically become a uber Liberal echo chamber. So, while I’m sure I still come here because it bugs the Hell out of me as to what this place has become (which I’m sure many will bloviate and bluster as to why this simply is not the case) I frankly come here (Surprise – Surprise) to learn (Hell, every once in a while even Hawkgrrrl and I agree on something) and, I also come to sharpen my wits. Arrogant Presumption sometimes applies to all.
Quentin., it used to be very easy for each ward to see what they brought in each month in FO, and what the Bishop spent when I was Bishop. But that was 20 years ago (exactly 20 years ago this month I was released). As long as FO payments were less that income, the SP never reviewed the list of expenditures. I was lucky to have a couple of wealthy donners that always gave a lot, and not a lot of needy. So I never once in 5 years had to justify any payment I made.
Grizzer,
I’m not particularly liberal and this is not an echo chamber… chamber… chamber… chamber.
See? A good sense of humor and the ability to not take your own point of view so seriously helps.
Great post! Spot on! I agree with this assessment of the issues, both the strengths and weaknesses of charity.
Several people have commented from the point of view of handing out Church welfare, and being the one to provide the charity. I’ve been on the other end — the charity recipient. I wrote up my thoughts on it in this post: https://wheatandtares.org/2023/02/17/the-social-safety-net-is-not-compulsory-charity/
Hawkgrrrl is right about the mismatch between real needs and what people are willing to give, about the feel-good stories that don’t really do much to help the person in need, and the pressure to perform gratitude so the help doesn’t go away.
Aunt Polly’s comparison was spot-on. Charity is first aid. Long term needs require more structure and a sustained funding support.
And to jump in on the back and forth with grizzerbear — this will come as a shock to no one who has been reading my posts and comments over the years, but I would much rather pay thousands in taxes to support an illegal immigrant who is sick and unable to work than pay thousands in taxes to build missiles used to bomb Iran.
Janey: Yes true – Your declaration is of absolutely no surprise; and is entirely consistent with your historical statements. As for me – I’m all for eliminating the nuclear threat from Iran: clearly a terrorist state and sworn enemy of the United States. As this point of my life, I’m more concerned for the well being and safety of my grandchildren – than I am of any discomfort we may temporarily feel – at this point in time. Honestly, think this is pretty indicative of (just one of the aspects of the Liberal vs. Conservative) ways of seeing the World.
Liberal/Socialists seem to be consumed by the “needs and feelings of the moment” – whatever that may be at any given time.
Conservative/Libertarians are consumed by “what is perceived as coming down the road”.
(Of course, both are all consumed by power, money and undue influence.!)
Broad brush I know – but there it is.
I believe Iran would absolutely use a Nuclear Weapon on the West; if ever given the most remote chance of creating one. So bomb away as long as it takes.
Old Man: well said…..”Said, Said, Said, Said….Said,….Said……
Bishop Bill – I really enjoy your posts! It is the same today. I can see Fast Offering income as well as expenditures, monthly, bi annually, yearly and past years. I can also see an individuals usage over time/years. On rare occasion, when someone has abused the system, I will flag their record so that their membership records cannot be retrieved by another ward when they move. My experience has been that abusers of the system will move to another ward boundary as soon as they are outed to take advantage of another ward. I don’t know that I believe that ALL of the funds collected by the church belong to the Lord, but I do believe that when they are spent the way He would want it spent, that makes it His. Some ward members have given a “widows mite” when they contribute, so I take great care to make sure their contribution is not spent on grifters. Additionally, with all of the tech that is now involved with the church “Leader and Clerk Resources” application, all of the financial stuff is very transparent. I hope I never have to deal with church finance or church welfare ever again!😏
I appreciate everyone’s comments here, and have found that I tend to, at some point, agree with some of the comments of those whose opinions are considerably different than mine. I’ll flat out state that I am independent politically and consider myself in the middle third of the conservative-liberal spectrum. Even when someone posts some kind of jackassery comments here, I hope that we all take a little bit of a look in the mirror and check ourselves. I know that I have been in the past, and will be in the future, a jackass on occasion.
Many years ago, I had a Wing Commander, a full Colonel in Strategic Air Command, at the height of the Cold War, come on my crew for a training mission. At the end of the flight he said, “you’ve got a great crew Captain, not a single jackass on it, but you have to be careful when you are on a crew where you can’t identify the jackass, there is ALWAYS a jackass on every crew, and when you can’t identify the jackass, it might be you.” Then he said, “I guess your Wing Commander is the jackass today!” 🤣
Cheers Everyone –
@grizzerbear55
You’re right that I can’t speak authoritatively about immigrants, but social science can, and the numbers just don’t back up what you’re saying about them. For every category you’ve mentioned, immigrants come out equal or better to natural born citizens in study after study. For the issue that seems to concern you the most, violent crime, the numbers aren’t even close. Americans are far, far more violent, and so you should be focusing on them if you want to reduce violence.
After you verify those statistics for yourself you might want to consider asking yourself why you were deceived. I’ll explain with a close to home example. There was a horrific and bizarre multiple murder a few miles away from where I live. Unless you’re my next door neighbor you probably never heard of what happened because stories like that one are a dime a dozen and not news.
I don’t even remember the names of the victims because I never knew them, but if the murderer had been an immigrant instead of a genuine red white and blue American man who grew up in the area, I think it’s pretty likely that you would know their names, because it’s fairly evident that you’re getting your news from a source that emphasizes immigrant crime while sweeping domestic crime under the rug. If I were you I’d ask myself what motives they could have for trying to make you blame marginalized people for your problems.
And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh.
grizzerbear, you know what’s thought-provoking about this broad brush of yours? This one:
Liberal/Socialists seem to be consumed by the “needs and feelings of the moment” – whatever that may be at any given time.
Conservative/Libertarians are consumed by “what is perceived as coming down the road”.
Liberals see it exactly the other way round. For example, conservatives (tend to) reject vaccines out of a short-sighted focus on liberty from science and medical mandates. Conservatives don’t see the long-term harm from diseases as outweighing the minor discomfort and tiny risk of vaccines.
Conservatives want to get rid of something they deem an immediate threat, immigrants, without looking at the long-term consequences of unleashing so much racism and permission to hate and be violent on the general population, and gutting the number of workers in America.
The factual gap in America is causing so many of the problems. I find when I talk to people who vote Republican, we have a lot of the same values. Our information and facts are completely different.
“I have zero confidence in government and any other organizational management of ‘funds for the poor.’ I will put no more ‘in the trough.’ I focus on caring for my own”
Completely selfish and arrogant. But it sums up attitudes I’ve heard about the poor from conservatives and libertarians for a long time. It is their fault. Don’t help them at all. Of course they often don’t say this directly, but it is clearly implied. What conservatives don’t understand is that this cavalier attitude indirectly suggests that we should build up the prison systems and be footing the ER bills more because of Medicaid, which ends up being more expensive than government assistance.
“come here with violence, rot, decay and destruction…with decay, destruction, violence, lawlessness and filth”
Completely racist. Immigrants commit less crime than citizens. Just an established fact. What is suggested here, though, is interesting: we should spend more on ICE, detention centers, and deportations instead of ways to integrate immigrants, provide a pathway for citizenship, and benefit from their productivity.
“So bomb away as long as it takes.”
Because of irrational fear of Iran attacking the US, which it is incapable of doing, we should carpet bomb the country and kill innumerable people. Of course, that means more spending on the military. Of course we all know that there never has been any wasteful spending on the military and that wars have always been productive ways to spend money.
There you have it, folks. Grizzerbear indirectly proposes more government spending on prisons, ERs, ICE, deportations, and the military. Man, I thought you were a libertarian who hated government spending? At what point are you worried about wasteful spending on detention centers, pointless wars, the military industrial complex, and prisons? All that costs way more than preventative assistance programs.
“I find when I talk to people who vote Republican, we have a lot of the same values. Our information and facts are completely different.”
I disagree. So many of the Republicans I’ve talked and people like grizzerbear are just plain evil and dangerously ignorant. They are racist and hateful and cannot be bothered to learn facts. They seek out propaganda because they are valueless, self-absorbed, entitled people. They hate the poor, they hate immigrants, especially non-white poor and immigrants. They hate the liberal boogeyman they have created in their minds. I have no compassion for them. I truly hate them. I still believe, however, that there will come a day that true patriots will form a majority in this country, overwhelm the evil vote, and bring to power those who believe in justice, truth, and progress, and who will more capably face the many challenges that lie ahead.
Brad D – I understand. I’ve met Republicans who are wholly consumed with hatred and bigotry (and then I avoid them like the plague). When I wrote that sentence, I was thinking about a conversation I had last week with some of the women in my exercise class. They’re nice people, they love their families, they agree with me that the work day should be shortened, that fraud is bad. And yet they vote Republican because they watch Fox News.
But then again, you’re right. A person can only tolerate conservative propaganda if they can agree with racism and cruelty. It boggles my mind that anyone can approve of what ICE is doing to human beings. It doesn’t matter if they crossed the border illegally or not, they are human beings. That lack of empathy is evil — it causes evil actions against human beings.
I was recently reading The Source by James Michener about the history of a town archaeologists discover in modern day Israel. In the most recent chapter, Germans participating in the First Crusade mistakenly murder thousands of Christians living in the Holy Land because they can’t tell the difference or what someone believes solely based on their appearance and dress. Everyone living in these towns dressed in similar ways, what was appropriate to the desert. It seems we haven’t learned much since then. Prejudice and self-righteousness are always with us, and they create bloodlust and destroy lives.
“The White liberal is the worst enemy to America and the worst enemy to the Black man. Let me first explain what I mean by this White liberal. In America there’s no such thing as Democrats and Republicans anymore. That’s antiquated. In America you have liberals and conservatives. This is what the American political structure boils down to among Whites. The only people who are still living in the past and thinks in terms of “I’m a Democrat” or “I’m a Republican” is the American Negro. He’s the one who runs around bragging about party affiliation and he’s the one who sticks to the Democrat or sticks to the Republican, but White people in America are divided into two groups, liberals and Republicans…or rather, liberals and conservatives. And when you find White people vote in the political picture, they’re not divided in terms of Democrats and Republicans, they’re divided consistently as conservatives and as liberal. The Democrats who are conservative vote with Republicans who are conservative. Democrats who are liberals vote with Republicans who are liberals. You find this in Washington, DC. Now the White liberals aren’t White people who are for independence, who are liberal, who are moral, who are ethical in their thinking, they are just a faction of White people who are jockeying for power the same as the White conservatives are a faction of White people who are jockeying for power. Now they are fighting each other for booty, for power, for prestige and the one who is the football in the game is the Negro. Twenty million Black people in this country are a political football, a political pawn an economic football, an economic pawn, a social football, a social pawn…”
― Malcolm X
I agree with Malcolm X on this one. “The White LIberal is the Worst enemy to America”…..This despite all of the the chest pounding, hand wringing, pearl clutching, name calling and presumptive arrogance and the oh so…..”I’m so much smarter and moral than you”….declarations above. Personally, I would laugh at the sheer insanity of it all…..if it just wasn’t so corosive and damaging.
Between the choices of openly racist (increasingly more Republicans) and secretly racist while denying it (white liberals), I think we can all see Malcolm X’s point. The enemy who identifies as such is much better than the one who thinks and says they are for you while actually doing nothing for you at all. But it’s political rhetoric, designed to make a point. It is probably more salient in the year he said it (1963), but an important caution even for today. The same critique has been made (hyperbolically) about feminist men being worse than avowed misogynists. We expect mistreatment from the latter, but are surprised when it comes from the former.
This quote is actually pretty similar to why I’m a political independent. The right is (IMO) amoral with bad aims; the left is ineffectual with good aims. With the right, you get bad acts. With the left you get no acts at all. Neither black & white statement is completely true, but these have historically been the blind spots of the two parties.
Nobody likes being stabbed in the back. Et tu, Brute?
I favor Magneto, over Xavier. (And why do scriptwriters go out of their way to make him the bad guy. They do the same thing in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier with the Flag Smashers. Karli Morgenthau suddenly acts out of character just so everyone knows she’s the villain) But I suppose, darn it, I’m more like Professor X.
So I am reminded of the quote from the other guy from Letter from Birmingham Jail, “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
Republicans use to support the ERA. Heck, and the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Clean air, Safe water. etc. Created the EPA and NOAA.
But those positions, didn’t stop disagreeing republicans from working to change those party positions. And now inflicting damage to the planet (and dismantling Civil Rights) is the operating procedure. End times and all.
I think the purity of being a political independent is suicide.
suzanne neilsen: ironically, I’m more with Hawkgrrl on this – than I am with your position. I simply don’t view the future as dark, foreboding and as “apocalyptic” as I perceive that you do. Human Beings have history of “duking it out” and somehow moving forward. I don’t believe in – nor do I want – a supposedly all knowing Governmental Agency telling us what to do. I suspect that many people (including myself) will fight until the end of time against being subservient to ANY KIND of “Overseer”.
Suzanne Neilsen: Well there’s being politically independent (e.g. not registering as either party), and then there’s voting. Since MAGA, there is basically nothing the GOP could do to get me to ever vote for them again. But I’m perfectly capable of finding the Democratic party maddening if morally superior.
“We must be Free…..not because we claim Freedom….but because we Practice it”. William Faulkner
Go away
In that essay Faulkner’s argument was that the South could not claim to value freedom while denying it to Black Americans. Of course one would have had to have read Faulkner in order to understand him. Once again the White Trash party contingent screams “Freedom!” while not understanding it and while woking to deny it to others. The White Trash Party. (we might call it MAGA, or the party of the Snopes and the Slatterys )is for civil rights unless it’s a right with which they disagree.
Name calling and behaving in ways that are uncivil will, in the end, undermine otherwise valid arguments.These are difficult times, but we can’t engage in ways that further alienate people. There are excellent arguments that can stand on their own merits.
I appreciate the context of William Faulkner’s statement on freedom. The quote is as relevant today as it ever was, as we claim to value freedom while denying it to people with skin darker than our own. Thank you for the background information regarding that quote.
If, for example, an individual admires Fascists, supports Fascist policies, engages in fascistic behaviors, supports Fascist individuals and enterprises, would it be name-calling to describe that person as a Fascist? Those who uphold normative behaviors were defeated at the polls. Spoons brought to a knife fight perhaps?
Nevertheless, anon is probably a better and wiser man than I.
I don’t object to calling a fascist a fascist. I’ll admit I do recoil when anyone calls anyone else white trash. Maybe because I grew up on the wrong side of the railroad tracks, figuratively speaking. Even though my family was educated we were sometimes treated as less than.
For the record, I really always appreciate reading your comments—I find them insightful, and you provide valuable context, as in this case with Faulkner—I really don’t want to pick a fight, the comments you make hold a lot of weight and help me to see things more clearly.
anon, thank you. I often get over my skis, I’m grateful that some people care enough to pull me back.