I emerged from an impromptu debate this morning with a conservative Republican more convinced than ever that social Darwinism is the belief underpinning many right-wing views.
It is easy to judge the poor and to assume that their failings are the result of inferior blood. I do not believe this is so, but it is a commonly held viewpoint. The homeless, in particular, are not easy on the eyes, in some cases, and they are visible, whereas rich business criminals are invisible, cloistered away upon private estates. The poor are tainted by the accusations of laziness, ignorance, and criminality. How do I explain to someone that a rich person is not necessarily superior in virtue and merit to a poor person? It seems like an uphill battle. Conservative Republicans are enraged by the thought that a poor black man may be sitting on his front porch all day long without working. The thought of a wealthy business criminal cheating the city out of millions of dollars inspires not the faintest annoyance--in fact, the behavior is defended in the name of freedom! I suspect that racism plays a role in the appeal of social Darwinism.
Many people say that they oppose Obama's health care plan because they do not want their tax money to be used to provide medical services to the poor. They would even prefer that the poor die, if it comes to that. In their view, the poor are poor because they are lazy or stupid. That is sometimes true, but not always. Should our society allow the lazy and the stupid to die? The Republican answer appears to be yes. In the name of evolution, or a stronger country at any rate, we should dispense with the weak, and favor the strong, or so it is thought.
I believe that the rich are often made so by their parents. They receive the right kind of encouragement and reinforcement and go on to be successful or at least inherit their parent's wealth and become adequate stewards of the savings bonds, real estate or other investments. Some people become rich through their own efforts. They may have been honest in doing so, although some are corrupt and become rich through dishonest schemes that harm the public.
The poor are often born into poverty or may have been disadvantaged in any number of ways. Why should we keep them alive? What benefit accrues to society when the poor are offered free medical care? That question, I cannot answer with statistics or sound bites, because I'm not a policy wonk. I don't know whether any practical benefit accrues to society by offering free medicine to a poor person. Perhaps there is no benefit at all. Even so, I would prefer to be in a society where we do not throw people away. It is an aesthetic choice, like my preference in art or music. I want a beautiful world, a compassionate world. I think it will be better and even stronger, but can I prove it? I cannot. Perhaps someone like Richard Dawkins could prove it--he has tried, at any rate. See "Nice Guys Finish First," his 1987 video on the practical benefits of cooperation.
If material success is, indeed, the end-all and be-all of a human being, then the obvious implications would come as a rude shock to many conservative Republicans that are far from wealthy. Those that society deems inferior are not necessarily so. Society has many delusions. Assumptions that are made in one generation can be turned upon their face in the next.
Once a human being is born into this world, he has become a member of our extended family, and his medical needs should be attended by the government. In our modern world, no one should have to face injury, cancer, or heart disease alone without any resources to assist them. If a man is troubled in his mind, then he should receive psychiatric care. If a man has a bodily ailment, he should receive the care of a physician or nurse. Lack of medical care assists the enemies of humankind, pathogenic bacteria and viruses, and it is not only the poor who will suffer, but those that they later infect. We are not isolated beings, but networked in a multitude of ways, and what afflicts one can afflict others. Lack of medical care results in more crime, more traffic accidents, more tragedy, and unintended consequences. Furthermore, when people find themselves in desperate situations, they sometimes lash out against society, with unpleasant consequences for everyone. I believe it is correct to avoid unpleasant circumstances or at least seek to mitigate them.
No comments:
Post a Comment