A Conservative Approach to Poverty
The issue of poverty is one that we conservatives don't spend much time addressing. For many of us, our religious faith convicts us to volunteer our time, skills, and financial resources toward alleviating poverty in our neighborhoods. As the pastor of my church in San Francisco often says, "We as a church are to make such a difference in this city, that if they kicked us out, they'd have to raise taxes." It's a beautiful mission statement, and one I am pleased to support, but when you look at how widespread poverty is-- in 2009, over 43 million Americans lived on the equivalent of $5,500 a year--you realize that the magnitude of the problem is far beyond anything we're equipped to address. We can never do enough to help them.
The traditional liberal solution to poverty is redistribution. If we only take more from the greedy rich, and give it to the poor, the thinking goes, we can eradicate poverty. But almost 50 years since LBJ first declared war on poverty, in many respects we're worse off than when we started. As a conservative, I am very cynical and skeptical about government social services because a) they are inefficient and fraught with waste and abuse; b) they are often ineffective, and beyond ineffective, they can be detrimental to the people they allege to help; and c) it's hard not to see these programs as a political scheme intended to ensnare a permanent class of Democratic voters.
Realizing that there will never be a panacea for poverty --as Jesus said, "You will always have the poor among you" -- it's time to start looking for other solutions, solutions that encourage human flourishing, preserve the dignity of all persons, and empower individuals and communities to take responsibility for their own lives. From what I've learned of it so far, the Family Independence Initiative (F.I.I.) appears to be a nascent approach that encompasses all these critical components.
Called the Family Independence Initiative (F.I.I.), its approach is radically different from the American social service model. Although it is still quite small — working with a few hundred families — its results are so striking that the White House has taken notice. What F.I.I. does is create a structure for families that encourages the sense of control, desire for self-determination, and mutual support that have characterized the collective rise out of poverty for countless communities in American history.
F.I.I. is not a “program” in a traditional sense. It doesn’t seek to implement changes, but to elicit them from others. It was launched as a research project by Maurice Lim Miller in Oakland in 2001...
Lim Miller had come to believe that the American social welfare system focused too much on poor people’s needs and deficits, while overlooking — and even inhibiting — their strengths. A safety net is crucial when people are in crisis, he said. But most poor families are not in free fall. They don’t need nets to catch them so much as they need springboards to jump higher....
[...]
For the middle class, resources are linked to initiative; for the poor, they are linked to problems. “We’re not advocating for this gravity defying ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps idea,’” adds Birdsong. “We’re saying: invest in families when they take initiative. We need to take what works for middle and upper income families and extend it to the whole income spectrum.”
This excerpt only conveys the guiding principles of the approach, and not the nitty-gritty details, so I encourage you to go read the entire piece (it's not that long). Regardless of the actual political affiliations of F.I.I.'s founders, I think they've stumbled upon a great thing informed by the principles that I as a Christian conservative cherish. I'm excited to see what happens as the organization scales up.
- Comment (56)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
I'm not so sure your first point here is correct. I can definitely say that the "poor" here are much poorer - in a great many ways - than I would like. And while I'll certainly never be heard disagreeing with your statement that "we're wasting trillions and dampening our growth" I do find it difficult to say that the lack of income mobility (at all levels of society, but in particular at the bottom, where people tend to stay once they get there) isn't an issue that's worth considering solutions to.
We wouldn't, for instance, be having the discussion about killing the education blob were it not for the impact its very existence has on mobility. Try living in inner-city Chicago or DC or even in some parts of NYC, with the way the government has destroyed nearly every social element worth fighting for, and then tell me there isn't a problem.
Waste, definitely, but lack of problem, not even close...
Jun '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
You're right Diane, this is an exciting concept. Conservatives have been frustrated for as long as I can remember by the conflict between a willingness to pay taxes to alleviate poverty and resistance to pouring money into the conterproductive model of the War on Poverty. My only reservation is the same as I have with the results of inner-city charter schools - the great results demonstrate what can be done for those who are poor in resources but rich in character. Those who have neither are an intractable problem. We used to call these "programs for the deserving poor," but that locution is probably a hate crime in your neck of the woods.
Edited on August 6, 2011 at 2:00amApr '11
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
Thanks. I took some time out from watching the Red Sox - Yankees game to take a look at that report. On Pg. 20 below Table 7 I found this caveat.
"...The poverty estimates in this report are based on money income before taxes, do not include the value of noncash benefits, and use the official poverty thresholds. The money income measure does not completely capture the economic well-being of individuals and families;..."
Therefore, it seems to me that the poverty figure rather dubious since it doesn't accurately reflect total income including cash, payments in-kind and transfers. As many have already said, Poverty in America is relative, not absolute.
Sep '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
Forrest Cox
Waste, definitely, but lack of problem, not even close... · Aug 5 at 4:52pm
Forrest, I think you're right that my treatment was obviously too superficial in some important ways, because I certainly I agree with you that there are many tragedies about the existence of many of those poor souls who live in the ghettos of our inner cities.
However, is poverty itself what the problem is in those areas where misery is intractible? I think we may have a disagreement on the meaning of the term. I think of poverty as feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. Beyond providing the bare essentials like this, and some love and brotherhood that is part of Christian compassion (which the government can NEVER provide, as it is dependent on individual virtues and not bureaucratic mediocrity) what else can one do that is related to poverty?
I think education is an obvious answer, but remember that no one can learn who doesn't want to learn. What do we do with those people? Some problems have no solutions, but are instead part of life in this world. We'll never eliminate those poor, just as Jesus said.
Jun '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
Herkybird
Thanks. I took some time out from watching the Red Sox - Yankees game to take a look at that report. On Pg. 20 below Table 7 I found this caveat.
"...The poverty estimates in this report are based on money income before taxes, do not include the value of noncash benefits, and use the official poverty thresholds. The money income measure does not completely capture the economic well-being of individuals and families;..."
Therefore, it seems to me that the poverty figure rather dubious since it doesn't accurately reflect total income including cash, payments in-kind and transfers. As many have already said, Poverty in America is relative, not absolute. · Aug 5 at 5:03pm
Damn, how did Time miss that?! Thanks, I didn't bother to dig for this nugget because I knew it had to be the case from the initial number. A family of four, mom, three little ones, with a poor job but lots of benefits - the $5K per head plus non-cash benefits just about hits the lower middle class.
Sep '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
One other point related to the wisdom of Jesus' saying that the poor will always be with us: all good conservatives with a "constrained vision" (per Tom Sowell) will agree that this is obviously true, there will be people poor in wisdom, intellect, fortitude, courage, ingenuity, prudence, compassion, thrift, and every other human quality of virtue. And a lack in many of these, like intellect and fortitude, will often lead to a lack of economic or social success in a dynamic economy that spans the globe.
We can, as good Christians, care for these people by feeding them, clothing them, and offering them our love. However, this is very different than throwing money at them and expecting material comforts to alleviate their poverty--all that does it waste money that could be better used to provide for others with even less by growing our economy and lifting more of the world from real poverty. Material things are not what they are wanting of, so money cannot solve their plight.
Sep '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
So, Forest Cox, allow me to modify my initial comment to be concerning material poverty instead of poverty in general.
Material poverty is not a problem in this country, so to answer Diane's question on what the conservative approach to poverty should be: to recognize that poverty is more than just a want of things and that money cannot solve many of the problems the impoverish face. So, we should tailor our solutions to fit the real problem instead of throwing money down the rat hole that is most of the modern welfare state.
Let us marshall our economic resources on the fronts where they will be effective, like providing work for the willing and prosperity for the productive, and marshall our spiritual resources on the front of poverty, for that is what we have a dearth of in that battle.
And thanks, Diane, for bringing up this topic. I love it when I am able to evolve my opinion to be better and more truthful, something which is nigh impossible not to do when reading the comments of your faithful readers.
Edited on August 6, 2011 at 2:40amSep '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
I'm sure kicking your church out and raising taxes are two things many in SF gov't would love to do!
Jan '11
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
It seems that the programs that have evolved in the US will only make the poverty problem worse. Most important - a stable, married family. Education where students actually learn valuable & marketable skills. The morals that come from faith are also crucial.
The 'poor will always be with us' because we are all failed. People will always abuse drugs & alcohol, people will always make poor choices in spouses/lovers, people will always be ill due to no fault of their own, people will usually take the path of least resistance - if its easier to collect benefits than work and be responsible - they will. I think that there are densities of social pathologies that when reach don't recover - best to break those situations up (i.e. public housing). Getting kids out of dysfunctional homes.
I pass through some rough neighborhoods on my way to work each day. There's alot of bad but there are signs of life. Mothers that you can tell love & take care of their kids as they walk them to school. I sense that these people are ready, they just need that hand up: vouchers, training, a chance.
May '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
Assuming IQ is distributed normally (it isn't exactly) about 16% of the pop. has an IQ below 85. That's about 50 million people. The fact that 43 million are making $5000/year (not including government benefits) is pretty good, considering that such people are almost guaranteed to do very poorly at school. The brain is not a muscle. IQ cannot be raised by doing exercises.
May '11
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
Diane Ellis, Ed.
I'm sorry that I distracted readers from the main point, which is how we can encourage upward mobility among those who feel stuck at the bottom.
Point 1) I ran a day labor company for a few years. I can tell you absolutely there is a certain portion of our population that are perfectly happy to get a check for $40 at the end of the day to spend on alcohol. And maybe do it again tomorrow if they aren't too hung over. We called these people "bums" for a reason.
Point 2) Re: Census statistics. How many of the "poor Americans" were actual citizens of the USA?
Point 3) LBJ's "Great Society" (a major cause of our current problems) was never about helping people. It was all about getting a voting block locked into the Democratic Party "for the next 40 years." (LBJ's actual quote cannot pass the CofC.) People "feel" stuck because that's what they have been told to feel.
Point 4) "The Census measures inequality by something called the Gini index." Sounds like the "Misery Index" that Carter quoted so often in his campaign vs. Ford.
May '11
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
I took the thrust of Diane's article to be pointing out the solution offered through the Family Independence Initiative to willing and motivated poor. As such, I read the article, perused their website and came away encouraged at the understanding of the founders and participants that experts are helpless to DO for people, but motivated poor people each can be an 'expert' of sorts to one another. People have strengths, knowledge, connections they can share; together they are raising their lot in life I like that staff of the program are not allowed to offer advice at all, due to the belief that fosters a sense of 'incapacity' in the person in need.
I live in a former timber town turned tourist mecca, turned one of the worst areas of unemployment in Oregon and indeed in the country. Dozens of individuals/whole families made it through the very hard winter---below freezing temperatures every night for months, snow, ice---living in tents. Tents were the most needed items at homeless shelters. Sorry, contempt for the very suggestion of the existence of poor people in America doesn't fly here.
Edited on August 6, 2011 at 6:11amRe: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
Kimberley:
I live in a former timber town turned tourist mecca, turned one of the worst areas of unemployment in Oregon and indeed in the country. Dozens of individuals/whole families made it through the very hard winter---below freezing temperatures every night for months, snow, ice---living in tents. Tents were the most needed items at homeless shelters. Sorry, contempt for the very suggestion of the existence of poor people in America doesn't fly here. · Aug 5 at 9:07pm
Thanks for this, Kimberly. I sent this post to a left-leaning friend of mine (who grew up in a rural, very poor area of Maine) because I wanted her to see that we conservatives think about these issues too, but approach them from different perspectives. But all she could zero in on were the comments that showed such contempt for the notion that there are poor people in America. She wrote, "Sorry, but anyone who wanted to argue that conservatives are evil people would have a lot of fodder from those comments."
Needless to say, that made me sad.
Mar '11
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
Yeah, Diane, I was pretty demoralized reading through some of the comments too. Thankfully I know many, many people who were or are involved in charity work at every level (from the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, Habitat for Humanity, to military Toys for Tots programs to Boys and Girls Clubs and so on) who are conservative, and who recognize that there is real poverty in America--even if that poverty isn't akin to famine in Somalia.
"America is the solution" is a slogan, not an approach. From the very first, the US government was involved in trying to ensure the preconditions for social mobility. Everything from nearly giving away land in new territories to establishing the public school system in the first place was conceived of as a way to grow the country, develop its talent, and relieve poverty.
Just because we don't think the progressive redistributive approach to poverty relief is the correct one, doesn't mean we don't recognize that poverty is a real problem or that government, especially at the local level, cannot play a positive role in any way in helping to reduce it.
Jun '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
At least they had plentiful makings for Spotted Owl Stew. Tasty.
I am not seeing contempt for the very existence of poor people in America so much as irriatation with the manipulation of the data to overstate the extent of the problem and then to keep pounding the drum for progressive solutions. There are poor people in America and LBJ and left seized responsibility to solve the problem fifty years ago. Trillions later, the left overstates the problem, understates the social pathologies that are root causes, and, in effect, argues that the failure of their approach means that we must redouble our efforts, but only consistent with progressive principles. Want to guess my solution for reviving the the timber industry in Oregon?
Edited on August 6, 2011 at 1:22pmJun '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
Pilgrim
Damn, how did Time miss that?! Thanks, I didn't bother to dig for this nugget because I knew it had to be the case from the initial number. A family of four, mom, three little ones, with a poor job but lots of benefits - the $5K per head plus non-cash benefits just about hits the lower middle class. · Aug 5 at 5:10pm
I am fairly certain it was intentional. It could be stupidity or lazy reporting, but I think Time wants to present a picture of a huge and widening gap between haves and have-nots.
When I first saw this thread and the $5500 figure I immediately added in ballpark calculations of food stamp/WIC/section eight housing vouchers/free medical care/school lunches/etc. Yes, "There but for the grace of God go I" was a constant reminder both at home and at school that formed my view of charity. But this piece is completely manipulative.
There certainly are going to be pockets of poverty in rural areas of the US. We need to address the needs of the poor realistically based on regional needs without squashing incentives to rise up out of poverty.
Feb '11
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
Perhaps the nature of the difference between conservatives and progressive liberals can be seen in Jesus' words: "The poor you will have with you always" -- not "poverty" but "the poor." We need to focus, as the program Diane Ellis is describing does, on poor people, not on "poverty," an amorphous boogeyman. Perhaps the difference is that progressives believe the state can make poverty go away magically, while conservative recognizes that our efforts are better focused on real people with real problems who need help to find solutions to their problems.
Jun '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
This simple statement exactly captures the problem. Before the Great Society/War on Poverty that is exactly what charity accomplished. Thankfully, many still do.
I saw an example of this when doing a blood pressure screening in a county subsidized senior center. One woman, clearly mentally ill, was obsessively cleaning her apartment with Chlorox until her hands were raw. Her panty was overflowing with food pantry staples and she had been "checked off" as "serviced." A notch in the belt of a social service agency. One more client "served" to boost the numbers in their press release. So sad.
Mar '11
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
While I’m all for focusing on “poor people”—i.e. treating people as individuals and not merely as statistics that we can claim “We’ve had a 1.5% decrease in poverty this year!” about, I think its important that we discuss the causes of poverty.
These causes are manifold: some are structural changes in the economy for which workers were not prepared and which led to long term unemployment; some are behavioral or pathological—such as alcoholism and drug addiction.
The poor individual, moreover, doesn’t tend to live in isolation—in fact, this is one of the problems. They live within a community that fosters all of the wrong habits and that perpetuates the vices of poverty.
So, when we talk about helping the poor, its certainly important that we understand who these individuals are and what their problems are, but its also important that we don't simply turn and say "charity is the solution" without specifying what we mean by that.
Aug '10
Re: A Conservative Approach to Poverty
Diane Ellis, Ed.
But all she could zero in on were the comments that showed such contempt for the notion that there are poor people in America. She wrote, "Sorry, but anyone who wanted to argue that conservatives are evil people would have a lot of fodder from those comments."
Needless to say, that made me sad. · Aug 5 at 10:45pm
Hmmm. 'Poor' is not the same as 'poverty'. Poor is a relative measure, while poverty is closer to an absolute measure. While we absolutely have people in America who are poor, instances of poverty are rare.
I would argue that the "evil people" your friend doesn't see are those who insist we keep funding the Great Society programs that haven't worked to reduce the proportion of poor in our country for 50 years. That meets the definition of insanity but to go further to mischaracterize those who seek to make life better for all as evil is itself evil.
Ask your friend to stop doing evil Diane. But politely, of course.
Edited on August 6, 2011 at 2:47pm