From Workhouse to Welfare
| More news stories on Pandering Politicians |
|---|
Review by Thomas Jackson, American Renaissance, September 1992
| The Tragedy of American Compassion Marvin Olasky Regnery Gateway, 1992 299 pp.; $21.95 (soft cover) |
All too often the follies of the present merely repeat those of the past; what is foolish today was found to be equally foolish when it was tried 100 years ago. Although it is tempting to think that only our century could have spawned something so misguided as welfare payments, The Tragedy of American Compassion teaches otherwise. Marvin Olasky’s illuminating history of American charity shows that relief workers have always had to contend with the impulse to give indiscriminately to layabouts, and that even in the 19th century, Americans flirted with the dole.
Nevertheless, as Dr. Olasky explains, traditional American charity has been vastly different from today’s welfare—and far more successful. First, it has been private and voluntary; only since the 1920s has any federal money gone to relief, and local governments have been very wary of welfare. Second, private charities did their work sensibly: They screened out loafers, searched for family members who could help, and tried to find people work rather than give them money. Finally, charity was driven by the religious conviction that the vices that caused poverty could be cured only by moral regeneration.
Thus, until only a few decades ago, Americans had healthy suspicions about the poor: that many were responsible for their own indigence and would happily live on charity rather than work. If Dr. Olasky’s book demonstrates anything, it is that relief work must make these assumptions. Effective charity is as much the art of withholding as it is of giving.
The Workhouse
In colonial times, charity did not go much beyond help for victims of catastrophe, and neighbors helped each other. When there was fire or earthquake, people shared their homes with the victims. If a family’s breadwinner were killed or maimed and there were no relatives to depend on, neighbors informally adopted the children or took in the mother as a seamstress.
Even so, every society has a class of unregenerates who exhaust all patience and generosity. For these people there was the workhouse. Dr. Olasky explains that it was as good as its name; inmates got rough lodging and meager rations in exchange for work. Only cripples and idiots were exempted, and shirkers could be flogged. Our forebears took Second Thessalonians seriously: “If any would not work, neither should he eat.” The workhouse was run by the community, but it was supported by the labor of its inmates.
For the colonists, the workhouse was the end of the line. A person could sink no lower, but at least he would not starve. Moreover, the workhouse was the only “public” charity to which citizens were entitled. “Outdoor relief,” or alms given to people not under workhouse supervision, was thought to be a temptation to indolence.
When cities appeared, relief work required something more than neighbor-to-neighbor charity, and hundreds of private associations sprang up to fill the need. Although they did not require that recipients live in supervised housing, volunteers investigated applicants carefully to screen out chiselers and to see if there were no relatives who could be asked to give support. Three to five families were thought more than enough for a volunteer and each was to get to know the families well. This way, charity could be increased—or withheld—as appropriate, and it usually took the form of food, clothing, or fuel rather than money. Nor did the poor get something for nothing; they were expected to try to get back on their feet and any who did not could be cut off.
The American system was much better than the government-funded “outdoor relief” that was common in Europe. Benjamin Franklin was only one of many Americans who were appalled by the results of government programs in Britain that gave money but asked no questions. “There is no country in the world,” he wrote, “in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken and insolent.” Dr. Olasky explains that the British themselves were struck by how differently the two systems worked. He quotes an approving Englishman who spent two years in the United States during the 1830s and who “saw but one beggar.” Alexis de Tocqueville also admired the American network of voluntary relief associations, which he found more effective than European state-run relief.
At the heart of American successes was hard-headed thinking. Dr. Olasky quotes a number of 19th century charity officials who, today, would be treated as ogres. One explained that the able-bodied poor “should be compelled to work or left to suffer the consequences of their misconduct.” Another wrote that the causes of pauperism included ignorance, idleness, intemperance, and “charities that gave away money too freely.” His organization tried to stop townsmen from giving money to beggars because it was impossible to tell the deserving from the undeserving. One official, in a rhetorical address to the indolent, wrote, “You will gossip and smoke, neglect your children and beg, live in filth and discomfort, drink and carouse, do almost anything rather than work, and expect, forsooth, to be supported by charity.” These charity workers were certainly “insensitive” by today’s standards, but they did an excellent job of caring for those in need.
Redistribution
Nevertheless, not everyone was satisfied. The Abolitionist newspaperman, Horace Greeley, was one of the first influential Americans to argue that the government should take from the rich and give to the poor. Although he later repented of his views—he came to believe that nine tenths of the beggars who held out their hands were “thriftless vagabonds”—his socialist editorials prepared the way for an unprecedented growth in “outdoor relief” in the 1860s and 1870s. Fortunately, this first attempt at a “great society” was quickly dismantled when local governments discovered that fighting poverty with tax money was a good way to swell the ranks of the poor.
Soon, America was back to discriminating between the needy and the greedy. Charities set up wood yards where they gave “work tests.” If a man were willing to chop wood for a few hours, he was worthy of help. When one Boston charity established a wood yard, the “needy” fell from 160 a day to fewer than 50. Dr. Olasky reports that by the turn of the century, charity wood yards were as common as liquor stores are today. The end of the century may have been one of the best periods in American charity. Relief workers had seen the failure of government welfare and had even noted the moral corruption of the people who administered it. An 1894 study of government-run relief concluded that “the degradation of character of the man on a salary set to the work of relieving the poor is one of the most discouraging things in connection with relief-work. . . .” Charity, like the ministry, should be a calling, not a job.
Unfortunately, it soon became a job. Dr. Olasky explains that the optimism of the new century brought a different view of relief work. Ministers and politicians forgot that the poor often brought about their own poverty. The patient, individual efforts of volunteers were thought to be old-fashioned, and inferior to grander schemes. “Social change” became the goal rather than the moral regeneration of the poor. Religion was set aside.
Perhaps most dangerously, as soon as Americans began to think that society rather than individuals caused poverty, it was logical to think that only government had the means to remake society. Professional social workers appeared, and as charity became a profession, mere volunteers were no longer thought fit to deal with the indigent. Even before the Depression, the philosophical foundation for the welfare state was being laid.
It was not, however, a straight line from the New Deal to the Great Society. The programs of the 1930s were to offer temporary aid for rehabilitation, and President Franklin Roosevelt thought state aid was a “narcotic.” Even in the early 1960s, Dr. Olasky tells us, welfare workers in New York City were still being warned that it could be as important to withhold relief as to give it, and the bureaucracy was still trying to locate relatives who could help. It is only in the last few decades that the stigma of the dole has evaporated, welfare has become a “right,” and the incompetent and irresponsible get unconditional handouts.
Government charity also squeezed the life out of the private associations that had done so much good work. As Dr. Olasky explains, bad charity drives out good; relief efforts that put the able-bodied poor to work and seek to correct their moral deficiencies will lose their clientele to government clerks who issue checks and ask no questions.
Long as it is on fascinating detail, The Tragedy of American Compassion is short on analysis and mute on solutions. Though Dr. Olasky does not say so explicitly, he has described a radical change in the way Americans understand human nature. Suddenly to hold society responsible for the failures of individuals was to toss aside the accumulated wisdom of centuries. Why did Americans abandon the principles of charity that had guided them? Why do we permit the continuing horrors of the welfare state? Why, aside from a few people like Charles Murray (who wrote the preface for this book), does no one call for the abolition of the dole? There is a paralysis of thought on these subjects that Dr. Olasky does not acknowledge and therefore cannot explain.
(Posted on July 18, 2008)
Comments
I wonder why we bother to have history taught in our schools. We never learn from our past mistakes.
Is there hope for the white race? We have to struggle against as many of our own group as we do against the onslaught of minorities. I even saw recently an article that said there is no such thing as an Aryan race.
Posted by Douglas at 6:36 PM on July 18
Why do we permit the continuing horrors of the welfare state?
What is it about the never ending printing of money to dole out you don’t understand.
Posted by at 6:38 PM on July 18
It can rightly be called “compassion” and “generosity” when a person VOLUNTARILY dips into his own pocket to help someone else in need.
However, when it’s funded by INVOLUNTARY taxes and government “largesse,” the only word for it is “theft.”
I personally sure as H3LL didn’t give my consent to be fleeced for the benefit of the welfare kings, queens, and offspring in this or any other country.
And just look at the twisted incentives which welfare gives the recipients..
Posted by at 7:18 PM on July 18
“I wonder why we bother to have history taught in our schools.”
I’m not so sure that we do.
I don’t recall hearing this sort of thing at my own school, other than perhaps the line approved by our commissars that productive Americans who want the needy to show even token efforts to so something other than take from the productive the fruits of their labor are selfish and cruel, and that there would be no fairness or decency without the love-filled iron fist of the people’s government to define, direct, and enforce it.
By the way, this article seems to flatly contradict the Word of Obama. Remember, it was not long ago that He said that the people’s declaration of faith in Him was the moment we began to care for the poor (not to mention the sick- not only people, but the whole world itself, with the oceans calming themselves as He began to lower sea levels to save us all ).
Posted by W.D. at 11:54 PM on July 18
Wisconsin instituted a welfare to work program about 5 years ago that limits the amount of welfare that the state will pay to someone. The problem now is that blacks have started moving from Milwaukee up to historically white towns, such as West Bend, and bringing their problems with them. They have taken over apartments in the Barton area and lead the population in police calls and substance abuse clinics. The crime rate is going up accordingly. The reality in these small towns is that jobs have declined also. But the white residents are more resilent and can fall back on other trades or even family. In another 10 years, West Bend will become a ghetto as the blacks and hispanics will drain more and more resources until the whites abandon the city and move elsewhere.
Posted by at 12:11 AM on July 19
I acquired a traumatic brain injury on spring break of my senior year in high school. Emergency brain surgery was done to remove a blood clot. I pushed through and graduated college. I haven’t held a job longer than 6 months in 13 years. I haven’t had any health insurance since my early years of college. Even in times of desparation, I couldn’t get any assistance. My parents have always paid into the system. I’ve done my part, considering. But, I’m too clean cut. I speak too well. No one can believe the story that I have to tell. I was told that my parents made too much money for me to have any assistance (I inquired when I was an adult. My father had been laid off from an aluminum company with no pension. My mother was a teacher. They’ve never made too much money.) I have loads of medical documentation, but I don’t qualify.
I NEVER WANTED THEIR ‘HELP’!
Posted by at 1:35 AM on July 19
I had a friend once who told me that one time, when he was in desperate straits, he went to a welfare office to see what benefits he could get. They told him bluntly, “you are a White male, get a job.” So some of the old opinions on welfare still exist, but only for one group of people.
Posted by Victor Gerhard at 11:42 AM on July 19
In the Bible, King James Version, 1 Timothy 5:8 says:”But if any provide not for his own and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worst than an infidel.” An analysis of this verse shows five imperatives for Christians.
(1)Providing essential. (2)Family comes first. (3)The word ‘specially’ shows ‘own house’ is not only beneficiary of charity. (4)’Own’ is limited, and does not include everyone. Implied here, the group or own race would be widest range of our charity. (5)This verse is directed not only at the strong, but also the weak (those temporarily receiving charity), to pull themselves together and as soon as possible provide for their own care and those they should take responsibility for.
Posted by Patrick2 at 11:45 AM on July 19
To the person who sufferd a brain injury: I have greatr compassion for you. I have spent a lot of time out of work and have been forced to live off my parents’ charity, although i am also a college grad and am likely a lot older than you. I have no real ability to earn a living and have faced a lot of discrimination in the work force and the academic world (the latter, at GA State U.) I have been tested for disabilities; the results are negative. I have dealt with the GA Dep’t of Vocational-Rehab Services in w. central Ga and now in metro Atlanta, where I just recently moved back to after 2 1/2 yrs. in a small town. The only help I have actually received was the suggestion I apply for work at an educational center. I am training to be a tutor, but I need full-time work. Unemployment insurance is low and will not last. I have no hopes of anything beyond a few hours’ work a week, but I will keep trying. Please do also. I am sure you will.
Posted by Cindy at 3:52 PM on July 19
Why not provide a minimum set of benefits: health care, food allocation, rent money, to EVERYONE equally? Except for health care, because I believe all citizens should have more or less the same health care benefits. As an added bonus it would put most journalists out of a job, maybe lawyers too.
Posted by last white person here at 10:28 AM on July 20
“Why not provide a minimum set of benefits: health care, food allocation, rent money, to EVERYONE equally?”
If you want to pay for it…Actually guaranteed annual inxome was favored by friedman (negative income tax), Hayek, and R. Milhous Nixon (family assistance plan) See Acts 4:32 for similar views.
Article 25. (U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights- 1948)
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Posted by millhouse at 12:14 PM on July 20
The so-called Katrina refugees are prime examples of the entitlement mentality. Texas welcomed these people in 2005 with open arms and are now paying a heavy price. Their actions validate the old saying that “no good deed goes unpunished.”
These “refugees/evacuees” continued to live completely free at government expense and have caused a crime wave in Houston. The homicides along with many other crimes have gone off the chart thanks to these “poor people.”
In the city of Austin, assisted by FEMA, a one day free transportation system was set up for the “refugees” to be able to partake of the benefit of job searching. The transportation consisted of nine buses and vans, to run from four locations and supply transportation all over the city. Notices were posted everywhere to alert the Katrina people of this service. At the end of the day, the nine vans and buses transported a total of
one person. ONe person took the bus., None of the Katrina people applied for any jobs. The cost of the service as $7800.
I guess this proves that if the government will put you up in some nice hotel and give you money, you really don’t need a job.
Posted by JAKE at 8:20 PM on July 20
Little is more dishonest and sick-making than welfare state pimps’ misuse of the Bible. The classic text reads “If a man asks for your coat, give him your cloak [or shirt] also;” it does not read “If a man asks for your coat, find a third party, mug him, take his coat, rifle through the pockets to find something nice for yourself, and give to Person A what’s left over. Then create a professional caste of coat-takers who will repeat exponentially your original theft.”
Acts 4:32 reads “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”
This is obviously a consensual matter among “believers,” all of whom have agreed with and partake in this arrangement. They’re not lobbying Tiberius for a cut of the pagans’ income.
Posted by Cassiodorus at 11:09 PM on July 20
I had a friend once who told me that one time, when he was in desperate straits, he went to a welfare office to see what benefits he could get. They told him bluntly, “you are a White male, get a job.”
Posted by Victor Gerhard
~~~~~~~~~
I could tell a similar story. One time, some years ago when I was out of work and getting desperate, I went into a place that was giving out free lunches. I thought I’d give it a try.
The black man in charge there, took one look at me and said,
“YOU? Get out!”
Posted by at 4:08 AM on July 21
“Is there hope for the white race? We have to struggle against as many of our own group as we do against the onslaught of minorities. I even saw recently an article that said there is no such thing as an Aryan race.”
Posted by Douglas at 6:36 PM on July 18
In this case, they are right and you are wrong. There is no scientific designation for Aryan as a race designator. Nineteenth century linguists mistakenly associated whites with the Aryan through erroneous association with certain branches of the Indo-European language groups. But Aryans are shown to actually be subcontinental Indians who followed Vedic traditions. They are also associated with early Budhism.
“There is evidence of an Indo-Aryan language in Mesopotamia around 1500 BC in the form of loanwords in the Mitanni dialect of Hurrian, the speakers of which, it is speculated, may have once had an Indo-Aryan ruling class. At around the same time, the Indo-Aryans associated with the Vedic civilization, which dates back to the same period. They are sometimes called Vedic Aryans because it is believed that they brought the Vedas to the Indian subcontinent after the Aryans migrated into that region (this theory is contrary to the Out of India Theory). In ancient India, the term Aryavarta, meaning “abode of the Aryans”, was used to refer to the northern Indian subcontinent.”
“Indo-Aryans are spread over most of the northern, eastern, western and central parts of the Indian subcontinent and in the islands of Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Indo-Aryan languages that exist outside the Indian subcontinent include Romani, the language of the Roma people, often known as “Gypsies”, Parya, used in Tajikistan, Jataki, used in Ukraine, and Domari which is used in the Middle East.”
The use of Aryan as a designator for the white race is based on 19th century racial romanticism. Adolph Hitler was poorly educated and historically illiterate, so these cultural assumptions along with the late 19th century revival of interest in the occult influenced his imagination. Some White Seperatists seem invested in these fantasies and therefore feel set upon when the fact of them is denied. But there are four racial groups established and under that ethnic groups and nationalities. But in Europe, nationality has traditionally been synonymous with race. For example, Jewish, a religious designator for a religion practiced by many racial and ethnic groups, is often regarded by the ignorant as a race designator. Winston Churchill often refers to national groups as races in his “History of the English Speaking Peoples.”
Hope for the White race? Not much if the majority thinks that a repetition of Hitler and Germany’s early 20th century ignorance is the answer. A lie is a lie, no matter how well it appears to serve the liar at the time. I believe that lies piled on lies lead nowhere. At least nowhere of lasting substance.
Posted by Whiteplight at 1:43 PM on July 21
For those interpreting Bible verse as a means to justify selfishness - there are many examples and quotes that promote general welfare and socialism rather than individual self-centered enrichment, which is clearly a sin. Do I really need to quote them? Early Christians lived in socialist communes that took wealthy converts riches and redistributed them to the entire congregation. This practice attracted many to the new religion as it was the first religion to do this, although Judaism had the earlier example of religious communties that although small, did the same.
“Love, Hope, and Charity” have been touted as the core Christian values for hundreds of years. A “Christian” government seeks to provide for the least of their brethren. But this is yet another reason that I criticize Christianity (or any relgion) as a guide for how we govern ourselves. Interest in our TRIBE ought to dictate that we look out for our true brethren. Christianity claims to convert the world into a happy state of brotherly love. Time to dispense with such nonsense, in my opinion. Christianity is a leech on the White race since it first invaded and took over Europe.
In the 19th century there was a reaction to Dickensonian England among the titled nobility. They recognized that if they did not provide for the poorest of their countrymen, their own positions would eventually become tenuous as the 19th century had proven a bad time for the monarchist system and the attending nobility. The reforms they instituted were via the initial “Round Table Groups” that became the think tank of Britain for the next century. All this was good and made England a better place.
The problem in Europe and the U.S. is that since WW2 we increasingly support the entire world as we allow large numbers of “new citizens” into our nations. This has led to a financial bleeding that has now gone out of control. What used to preserve order in England was of questionable use here because we applied it overwhelmingly to blacks, who culturally did not have much incentive to work. The problem here is that we have been a nation of stranger from the start. But lately, it is the overwhelming waves of so-called Hispanics from South of the Border that are ruining the financial health of many states.
Jesus said that the poor would always be with us and they must be assuaged. But he was talking to other Jews in a community. It may be possible to support the old, infirm and unfortunate in your own tribe of people who share the same outlook - values and ethic as you - basic descency dictates it and seperates us from the animals. But projecting this idea onto the whole world has been a disaster. Today, much of Africa is nothing but a gigantic welfare client state as the mental illness of Christianity compels the West to suicide.
Posted by Whiteplight at 2:15 PM on July 21
Victor:
Your story does not sound accurate. During my eight years of working at a welfare office, we routinely had people of all races come in an apply for welfare benefits. The most common profile were Black and White female single mothers. Some Latinos did too, although they seem to have an aversion to welfare
Noenetheless, I would say that 8-10% of our customer base were single White men.
Posted by Dennis at 4:13 PM on July 21
Acts 4:32 reads “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”
“This is obviously a consensual matter among “believers,” all of whom have agreed with and partake in this arrangement. They’re not lobbying Tiberius for a cut of the pagans’ income.”
The Acts 4:32 available on the net reads very differently from what I read years ago, in an older bible. From memory- a husband and wife each had a house, both were sold. Proceeds to go into a common pool Walking along a road, they were asked (each separately) “Did you sell the house and keep the proceeds?” Each answered yes, then right on the spot EACH WAS SMOTE DEAD. This is not a voluntary arrangement, any more than the taxpayer financed transfers are voluntary. Acts 4:32 was borrowed by Marx and became “from each according to ability, to each according to need.” The political system Marx advocated is not exactly voluntary.
Posted by TabuLa Raza at 3:23 PM on July 22
“Walking along a road, they were asked (each separately) “Did you sell the house and keep the proceeds?” Each answered yes, then right on the spot EACH WAS SMOTE DEAD. This is not a voluntary arrangement, any more than the taxpayer financed transfers are voluntary”
This is a different passage and incident, but it is not relevant to the point in any case. These people were “believers” and were reneging on the covenant they had made, as they held back money they were obliged to contribute. No third parties of any kind were involved. As for Marx, it’s hardly reasonable to expect an honest or disinterested interpretation of anything from him. The NT arrangement was certainly voluntary; communism and its totalitarian brethren are not.
Posted by Cassiodorus at 7:58 AM on July 23