(This one is going to be long, I fear, so those of you who dislike long rambles might want to tune out and scroll down.)
I do not have contempt for poor people, but I do have contempt for those who encourage them to think they "have no choice."
Because by historical standards, America's poor have a great deal of choice indeed.
At the same time, however, I do not have contempt for those who ask us to improve the opportunities that those poor have. While economic mobility under the "American" model is great by any historical comparison I can think of, it is still largely "1-generation" mobility. It is "children can have a better life than their parents" mobility. It is not "you can have a better life mobility." The next generation's opportunities are bigger because of our hard work. Ours are often not.
The odds for the latter *are* better under the American model, too, but there is still room for much improvement.
I would rather be poor here than anywhere else, because I know that I've got a better chance of moving up through my own ingenuity and hard work here than anywhere and anywhen else. But I also know that the farther down I start, the less likely it is that *I* am the generation who will reap the real benefits of my ingenuity and hard work.
So why do I have contempt for many of those who would complain to me about the plight of America's poor?
Because, no matter how far down the American hierarchy of wealth one of those American poor might be, by comparison with *billions* of people in the world, they are incredibly rich in their opportunities. I've often heard people arguing about how many millions of poor there are in America, and it appalls me, because for every "poor" person in America there are 100 or 1000 profoundly poorer people elsewhere. People who truly have virtually no opportunity to improve the lot of EITHER their lives or their children's lives. Much less have the opportunity for improving their children's lives or even their own lives that the American poor have.
Economic mobility of the kind virtually every poor person in America has -- the kind of mobility that "children can have it substantially better than we have" -- is a phenomenon only a couple hundred years old.
I don't value people more because they are rich, any more than I value people because they can put lots of letters after their name. I do value people who strive to better themselves and their children. And I'm sad when, as they often do, despite their striving, they fall by the wayside.
But I get pissed off when I hear "they have no opportunity." Because, to me, that is so much bullshit. If there was no opportunity, why the fuck do all those people want to cross our borders? If there was no opportunity, why the fuck are all those "illegal immigrants" willing to move themselves away from their families, risking the border patrol and the scorn of those they are seeking to join, getting exploited up the wazoo by sweatshops and other bastards, doing all the shit jobs?
Because contrary to the fearmongering, most immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are not doing it to get free welfare and medicaid and all the rest. They're doing it because they believe -- because they know -- that this is where the real, where the best, opportunities for upward mobility are.
Still.
I don't believe the poor are always "responsible for their plight." I believe that, for most of them, life has dealt them a shit sandwich through no fault of their own. But I also believe, whatever variety of shit sandwich they have been given, they have more opportunities for a better diet than just about any poor anywhere else. And they certainly have more opportunities for ensuring their children have a better diet.
Too much of what we do in the name of the poor is developing a sense of entitlement.
Take Foster's little "interruption" to our argument. Foster has three fire extinguishers. (But of course Foster is a rich bastard, so what do you expect? 🙂 )
But joking aside, the ability to have three fire extinguishers, at a cost of less than 0.5% of the "poverty line" for a family of four, shows just how wealthy we all are.
Of course, not everyone has three fire extinguishers lying around. Or even one. Should everyone be entitled to have three fire extinguishers to protect themselves against house fires? (Depending on where you live, the law might require you to spend your or your landlord's money on them, but that's another argument for another day.)
Well, IMO, the answer is easily "no." As Foster's "cheapness" illustrates, you don't need a fire extinguisher for all fires that could burn down your house. What you need is a neighbor saying "hey fuckhead, your porch is on fire" and then the smarts to know that water can be found in your kitchen.
Now I understand. The difficulties of the poor can be far larger than Foster's silly cigarette hygiene. But the point is the same. We do the poor no favors by telling them they are entitled to fire extinguishers or anything else.
And that is true whether the "we" who are telling them this are from Pennsylvania Avenue or Wall Street or Madison Avenue. (Because, yes, it isn't just the government do-gooders that deserve our contempt here; its the corps who are telling the poor they need cable TV and LCD screens and Gameboys and Nike shoes and whatnot).
No, what we ought to be doing is teaching the poor how to be Foster-cheap, to find ways of doing without and ways of getting extra income and being a turnip (as in "blood out of") today so their kids eat roast beef tomorrow. Ways to see opportunities in the pile of shit around them.
That's what the poor of Ellis Island, who came from places with even bigger piles of shit around them, did. That's what the poor of Guadalajara and Bangalore, who still have even bigger piles of shit around them, do.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)