Empathy for the Stranger

(Disclaimer: By its nature, in this post I make some generalizations.  By no means do I intend to say that all conservatives are this way.  However, I do believe there is a trend worth examining, and this is based on my experiences in person and online, what conservatives say and do in the media, and opinion polls.)

"Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.'" - Matthew 25:34-36

Talk about timing.  I had already composed the following post when this showed up on my Facebook feed:

The numbers appear fairly accurate, if awfully simplistic (well, I don't know about the "crack heads").  So it's not the numbers I take issue with, but rather the attitude.  The idea of 42 million Americans being "unemployable" is crazy and insulting.  It would mean we have an unemployment rate of around 30%, depending on how you measure it.  Also, the average SNAP (food stamps) monthly benefit is about $140, hardly enough for an "unemployable" person to live on.  If you're talking about TANF (i.e. welfare), the actual number of recipients is around 4.5 million.  And then there's the implication that undocumented immigrants are just here to be leeches.  It's all offensive, and the exact message that I try to counter below.

Almost all of the conservatives I know are good people.  They work hard, have fun, take care of their families, and participate in their communities in various ways.  Many of them would go out of their way to help someone in need.  Under certain circumstances they'll aid strangers - by supporting our soldiers and veterans, giving to a charity they approve of, or opening their hears and wallets after a tragedy like 9/11 or Sandy Hook.  However, when it comes to contributing to a government program that will aid someone less fortunate whom they are not directly or indirectly acquainted with, they respond with disgust.  Why should they help a moocher or a freeloader?  Why does their problem obligate them to do something?  How do they know their contribution won't be wasted?  Overcoming these obstacles, getting people to look past their communities and see the worthiness of investing in a broader civil society is one of my main goals as a prairie progressive.

A short anecdote before I continue.  I know someone who lives in a small Kansas town.  This person's son had to have an operation.  I'm not aware of all the details, but I do know that the elementary school community came together to help pay the medical costs.  This same person has posted anti-Obamacare memes on Facebook.

What the community did for the boy was fantastic and commendable.  I'd expect no less from the good people of small-town Kansas.  But here's the rub - not everyone is fortunate enough to have such a strong support network available when times are tough.  Everyone deserves appropriate medical care, but not everyone can afford it or receive the charity of a caring community.  This is where a government that doesn't care who you are or what your situation is can step in to help.  It might be the only institution powerful and far-reaching enough to effectively render aid to those who need it most.  This is why I believe it makes sense for everyone to contribute to a universal health care system, like every other advanced country on Earth.  The Obamacare-basher wouldn't need to worry about community support under universal health care.

Conservatives take care of their own, but it seems that they often display a lack of concern or empathy for the "other," which is often based on preconceived notions or stereotypes.  You can trace this common thread across the spectrum of political issues.  Recipients of welfare and other government aid are lazy and don't want to work; the jobs are out there if they just try.  Of course, no one they know is part of the infamous 47% moocher class; they can vouch for all of them.  Undocumented immigrants don't work hard and are a drain on the system; why don't they come here legally if they want to be here so bad?  Gun violence is a problem for urban blacks and the sporadic nutcase, why should they care if some gangbangers wanna shoot each other up?  Gays and lesbians don't need special treatment or marriage equality because they're not really a separate class of people.  If Muslims face discrimination and increased scrutiny, well, their kind shouldn't have attacked us on 9/11.  And a woman facing the challenge of an unwanted pregnancy shouldn't have put herself in that position to begin with.

I'm certainly not going to tackle all these issues in this post.  But the common theme is that sometimes we have to concern ourselves with the needs of strangers for the good of everyone. That can be a tough pill to swallow at times, but in the long run everyone will be better off.  It's one of the foundations of the social contract people make when they abandon anarchy in favor of an organized government.  You may abandon a bit of personal freedom (and money), but in exchange you get an institution that takes care of things individuals cannot.  Originally this meant stuff like building roads and providing for a common defense.  In the twentieth century most advanced countries furthered the cause of government to look after those whom the system has left behind, generally through no fault of their own.  It is the fulfillment of "promoting the general Welfare" mentioned in the US constitution.  It fuels economic growth, lowers crime, and promotes a more just and fair society.  And, God forbid, some day it could be you that's become dependent on the kindness of strangers.

Libertarian-types might claim such charity should be voluntarily handled by individuals and private or religious organizations.  I certainly don't want to downplay the fine work these groups do.  They have a vital role to play in civil society, and anything they can do to lessen the burden on government is well worth it.  But not everyone has access to those services or chooses to seek them.  Someone should not have to receive help from a church whose beliefs they don't share.  This is where government comes in.  Government does not care what god you worship, who you know, or what your demographic characteristics are (generally speaking).  It can provide help when no one else will or can.  That does not mean that everyone gets a free ride.  There are certainly good reasons to put reasonable requirements and qualifications on receiving aid.  (These can go too far - there's a bill in the Kansas legislature to require welfare recipients to apply to two dozen new jobs per week, an impossibility in most Kansas locales.)   Moreover, government may be the most effective institution in leveraging influence, power, and money to effective render aid.  This can actually save money.  Who can more efficiently cover health care costs - a group of concerned citizens, or the US government?  It's the same idea of pooled capital and risk that underlies the basic concepts of insurance.

So, how do progressives get conservatives to consider the needs of others?  For those in small towns, I think the key is promoting awareness to overcome stereotypes.  That doesn't mean people have to abandon small-town life; the Internet has made such awareness easier than ever before and it's one of the missions underlying this blog.  The many opportunities I have had to venture beyond my small-town heritage, meet new people, and understand their struggles and perspectives is a major reason I abandoned my teenage conservatism.  Conversely, many rural residents may never have met an openly gay person, or a Muslim.  They might not even have met a black or Hispanic person (there was one black kid in my middle school - in a bustling metropolis of 20,000 - but none in my high school).  Anyone they know receiving government aid they can vouch for as good people (including themselves - remember the military conservative who has no problem reaping socialist-style benefits), but it's easy for them to assume others are lazy good-for-nothings.  A primary cause of this is that conservative media figures seize on stereotypes and run with them, playing on fears of the unknown and promoting politicians who will end up cutting programs that benefit everybody (the vile untruths that Rush Limbaugh has spewed about non-Cuban Hispanic immigrants alone could fill volumes).  All of which, of course, ends up benefiting the rich.  I'm not worried about them.  They'll always be able to afford health care or college tuition.  They'll never be on welfare.  That's their privilege and I don't want to take it away from them.  I'm just trying to look out for the rest of us.  The 98% are in this together.