How can we end poverty? Stereotypical conservatives would say, "He who doesn't work should not eat." Stereotypical liberals would say, "Rob the rich to feed the poor." Like most Americans, I have come to question both extreme measures and believe solving poverty require lot more comprehensive solutions.
Generally, conservatives believe people with enough motivation can pull themselves out from poverty. They argue people, not government, create wealth, and as long as the poor rely on government welfare they will always be poor. Liberals insist that poverty is a societal problem that requires solution at a societal level. They believe many different negative societal factors, such as lack of education and job opportunity, chain people to poverty and it is the moral responsibility of the government to remove social obstacles that are preventing the poor from enhancing their lives. Over the years, I have come to question why the two arguments are meant to directly oppose each other, when in fact they complement each other.
Even if an economic opportunity is given, it is ultimately up to an individual to seize that opportunity. Many previous governments' anti-poverty programs were criticized for stifling people's incentive to make their own decision about their lives. Often national welfare programs appeared to care little for the individual situation of each poor family and proved to be quite incompetent in actually reducing poverty. The conservatives' push for faith-based initiatives have a very valid point that private, local-based charity organizations are often more effective than government bureaucracy in reaching out to the poor community. Often family, friends and churches play significant role in bringing accountability and personal responsibility in the lives of poor.
However, I also believe personal responsibility and local charity on their own are insufficient to abolish the cycle of poverty that haunts many in our society. Structural obstacles against poverty are very real for millions of the "working poor." While the market economy generally does promote the overall productivity of the nation, without a check it has a tendency to concentrate wealth that brings huge disparity of income in the society, victimizing many who are unfortunate to be caught in a negative economic cycle. Charity alone is not enough to overcome such structural obstacles against poverty; I believe the government also should play a critical role in promoting economic justice.
When President Bush first presented his compassionate conservatism, he promised to promote faith-based initiatives to reduce poverty. I am disappointed that in reality there was inadequate federal funding for faith-based organizations, for currently these charity organizations just do not have enough resources to support all the poor neighborhoods in the United States, much less the whole world. While I admire the outpouring of compassion displayed by average Americans during Hurricane Katrina, constructive rebuilding of New Orleans requires stewardship from the state and national government. I admire individual entrepreneurship, but I also emphasize the importance of the government to lend a helping hand to those who fall, so they can walk again. Conservatives generally dislike excuses, but there are times when unfavorable environment really prevent the individuals from achieving their goals.
While it's true not that everyone can be rich, it's a grave injustice that some are trapped to stay poor. The micro approach of the conservatives and macro approach of the liberals are both essential to tackling poverty in society; promoting individual and communitarian ethic for responsibility, cooperation and opportunity.
Jong Eun Lee is a sophomore in the
College of Arts and Sciences and a liberal
columnist for The Eagle.
