Making Poverty History - An Analysis, Part VIII: The Care Industry and Democrats

[I have made a promise I intend to keep, no matter how trying it is for me to do so. That promise was to analyze poverty and wealth, a huge topic, in a series at Contratimes. There is no small part of me that wishes I had not been so brash; to make a commitment to such a task takes more than a little discipline, it takes a lot of skill. Unfortunately I have little of both.]

Let me stipulate that the Democratic Party, irrespective of its religion-laced rhetoric, is the only political party in the United States that cares for the poor. I so stipulate merely for polemical purposes. I also stipulate that the Democratic Party is the formative force behind the "care industry" in the United States; and I note that the Democratic Party is not itself a party solely consisting of poor people. In fact, where I live, many of the richest people I know are Democrats. And they are really quite rich.

With these stipulations, I want to make one point about someone who remains arguably the figurehead of the Democratic Party, John Kerry. Mr. Kerry, in case you have forgotten, is a member of that class aptly called the super-rich, with he and his wife, Tereza Heinz, worth at least $500,000,000. (That Ms. Heinz' fortunes came through her previous marriage to a Republican is not really germane to this point, though it is curious in a gossipy sort of way.) And we will recall with ease that Mr. Kerry stood for political values that included rolling back the Bush tax cuts. To Mr. Kerry, the tax cuts did nothing to benefit the poor or middle classes. (Remember Mr. Kerry's and running mate John Edward's catch-phrase, "There are two Americas"?)

I am wondering if you knew that Mr. Kerry and his wife chose, in 2004, NOT to pay Massachusetts state income tax at an (optional) higher rate offered by the tax commission for those with high incomes? That this made a few New England papers, and the talkshow circuit in Boston, is about the broadest audience this tid-bit reached. Mr. Kerry, and his wife, no doubt with the shrewdest of accountants at hand, chose to keep some of their earnings to themselves, choosing not to give extra money to the state coffers, money which could have been used, in part, to fund programs for the needy or less fortunate.

Mr. Kerry's actions, or inactions, are applauded by me as actions well within his right. I am glad that he was free to do with his money as he saw fit. But I can't help but note a bit of irony here: The super-rich gave themselves a tax cut though they appear to oppose cuts in government funding.

But there is something much more disturbing about the Democratic Party and its support (and love of) the care industry. There is, after all, such an industry, largely subsidized by government grants (or fully and directly funded as in the case of federal programs) and filled with workers and directors whose jobs and dreams and careers are dependent on government funding. These care industry-types, many of whom are Democrats, not only expect but need taxation to continue in order for their own programs to be maintained from year to year. There is, inherently, a vested interest in increased government spending by these care industrialists; these corporations of caregivers.

Please recall with me two things from the 2004 election. First, that the Democratic Party ran on a platform that included federally-funded healthcare for the 40 million Americans without any health insurance. That these 40,000,000 include 18-28 year olds who generally don't even think about healthcare; the very rich who choose to finance their own medical care; and those folks who simply do not want such insurance is interesting to note: the 40,000,000 is not necessarily replete with ONLY poor people.

Second, recall that John Kerry received over 59,000,000 votes by Americans who shared his views about healthcare for "the poorest among us." Recall too, that as a result of Mr. Kerry's defeat by George W. Bush in that election, many Democratic leaders and pundits rebuked the pro-Bush electorate for being uncompassionate, "un-Christian", and uncaring vis-á-vis the less fortunate. There was from coast-to-coast, from C-Span to lowly newspaper editorial pages, an outrage and disgust at the moral callousness of the Bush administration and the Republicans for cold-heartedness. Many expressed that they wanted to leave America, as it was no longer a kind or generous place: America had closed its doors on the poor. (New Hampshire bumper sticker: Bush/Cheney '04 - Leave No Billionaire Behind.)

But here is the real rub: There is nothing preventing 59,000,000 Democrats who care about the poor from creating a fund, with each person in that 59,000,000 contributing a minimum of $10 to it, with that fund solely earmarked for providing healthcare to the neediest. Trust me when I say that this could have happened, and that many people would have contributed far more than $10. I am bold enough to say that if the Democrats are indeed the party of compassion, then this group could have easily raised close to a BILLION dollars in one year to distribute for healthcare costs.

Of course, no one did this, and no one seems to even think along these lines. Rather, America is deemed by Democrats a bad place because people voted AGAINST having the government forcefully take money from each of us for distribution. America is deemed a bad place because President Bush does not back universal healthcare, and hence Democrats whine about the plight of the poor. Apparently, to Democrats, America is only compassionate, Christ-like and caring when caring is a matter of law.

Does this not bother anyone? Here we have millions of Americans who could help their neighbors via a privately organized and funded agency entirely created by like-minded individuals, built entirely on voluntarism. No, instead we are left with a party that not only demands mandates, but that such mandates be funded by the government by force of law.

I want to conclude this part of the series with this amazing remark by Edward Norman, a BBC notable and Chancellor at York Minster. Mr. Norman's remarks are directed at the increasingly irrelevant force known as the Anglican Church, but they are nonetheless germane to our discussion:

"Back in the heady days of the 1960s the Church of England was insistent that the application of Christianity required believers to be involved in the ways in which society was organized and the state was governed. The simple application of charity as a palliative to social distress was no longer perceived to be adequate; structural solutions were required – political action, that is to say." [emphasis added]†

Norman's point is clear: Loving one's neighbors with true charity has been jettisoned for the machinery of politics and economics, in other words, love has been replaced by industry, the care industry. Nothing is greater proof of this in America today than the Democratic Party's bemoaning the 2004 election outcome, and its increasingly strident calls for income redistribution. Millions of dollars are raised and spent by Democratic candidates and organizations not to give to the poor, but in order to win elections, make laws, and force everyone else, by legislation, to be loving and caring to the poor.

There is emptiness in all of this. I just hope you see it.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

†Citation from Anglican Difficulties: A New Syllabus of Errors by Edward Norman, Morehouse Publishing, London, 2004; page 29.