The Conservative Task

 Conservatives are generally at a distinct disadvantage when promoting policies believed to be in society’s best interest.  Telling people what they need to know, as opposed to what they want to hear, is a tough sell.  Think of Romney’s prescription for economic recovery as opposed to Obama’s promises.  Utopians, as liberals usually are, believe that human nature is malleable.  Conservatives, of course, know that is false (there’s a reason why utopian schemes have ALWAYS failed).

But isn’t it human nature, also, to believe that life will be better if we want it to be so?  In a sense, there is a liberal impulse within the human breast.  Human nature has an optimistic streak and that is good.  But conservatives know that that impulse must be tempered by an appreciation of less appealing aspects of human kind.

Take a look at what happens when good intentions run amuck without the restraint of common sense (mandated by a knowledge of human nature). 

The food stamp program (known today as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) began as an effort to ameliorate the effects of poverty.  Admirable intentions, indeed.  It was one part of a broader goal (remember LBJ’s “War on Poverty”?).  Now, though, it’s appropriate to consider whether food stamps have produced the intended consequences. 

In 1969, about 3 million Americans participated at a total cost of $250 million.  In 2011, forty-two years later, total participation had climbed to 45 million, a 1500% increase in that time span.  And annual program costs have risen to $76 million, 30,000% higher than in 1969.  (Yes, 300 times more.)

The poverty level in 1973, for instance, was 11%, a few years after the food stamp program began.  In 2011, the poverty percentage was 15%.  Even accounting for the economy’s prolonged downturn, it is obvious that this program has not served to reduce poverty among its targeted audience.  The food stamp program was designed to make people less hungry.  It was supposed to free them from worrying about where food would come from for themselves and their children.  With that worry (basic need) taken care of, the thinking was they’d be able to focus their attentions on getting jobs and escaping poverty.

So what happened? 

Human nature compels us to take the least difficult path to our objective.  If the government is offering financial assistance, the recipient has less incentive to seek financial resources elsewhere (as from employment, family friends or private charities).  Now, of course, no one likes being poor but getting out of it also involves a cost whether it be effort, inconvenience, commitment to work or sacrifice of leisure time.  Certainly this doesn’t apply to all.  Some, due to physical or mental incapacities, lack the ability to exit a state of impoverishment.  But doesn’t life’s experiences (a.k.a. common sense) tell us that it certainly applies to many of those on food stamps and other forms of welfare?   

America has (unintentionally, I’ll agree) created a culture of dependency. But that hardly excuses the failures of liberals to acknowledge human nature in efforts to “help” the poor among us.  It is ironic that the very policies fashioned to lessen poverty have had the opposite effect. 

We conservatives hold the moral high ground.  We don’t promise utopia in any of its guises.  We offer help based on experience and human nature, not hope based on fanciful illusions. 

Alas, we have not done a very good job of broadcasting these facts in the public arena.