I think that in the War on Poverty,
that Poverty won.
The rough percentage of those in poverty hasn't really budged,
despite the billions spent.
David
"Free
speech is meant to
protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition,
needs no
protection."—Neal
Boortz
On 4/18/2012 1:00 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
[Answering a question Billy asked in a private email]
Hi Billy,
But let me take up what you said about both
narratives being true.
Or "at least equally true." Did you mean at least partly true, or at
least mostly true ?
If they are equally true then "at least" doesn't
compute. So I will assume that
you meant partly or mostly, not 1 : 1 equal but
both true to some extent
and probably more true than not.
I spoke fuzzily. I think they are both partly true, and
perhaps mostly true, and -- in some sense -- both true to the
same extent, though in different ways.
Here's what I mean. In terms of raw "facts on the ground,
I would agree that the "second thesis" ("Conservative View")
is more factually accurate.
However, in terms of "what remains to be done", I think we
actually need to start from the "first thesis" ("Liberal
View"), despite its many flaws.
My personal belief is that the black activist community is
dead right on the symptoms, but 90 degrees wrong on the
diagnosis, and 180 degrees wrong about the prescription.
The black community *is* still damaged. But not *only*
because of slavery and skin-based racism of the Old Right, but
*also* because of the patronizing "help" of the New Left.
And to that extent, we who participate in the majority
culture *do* have an obligation to help that community reverse
those injustices. Not necessarily from any sort of collective
guilt; pure self-interest is a sufficient motivation. And the
fact that we on the Right refuse to face up to that
responsibility is the best evidence for the underlying
validity of the "first thesis."
The problem is that the Left refuses to admit they are part
of the problem, while the Right sees the only possible
solution being a color-blind libertarian market. Both leave
the black community -- and other impoverished communities -
utterly stuck.
We need what I call Post-Modern Paternalism:
http://radicalcentrism.org/resources/the-declaration-of-post-modern-paternalism/
We who are blessed with
various resources (e.g., insight, freedom, money) believe
our greatest happiness – and highest self-interest – is
cultivating those in others. At the same time, we humbly
acknowledge our ongoing need to cultivate these in
ourselves with help from others.
In light of this, our
universal policy — in our personal, professional, and
political lives — is to simultaneously Empower, Respect, Teach & Sustain others
as ourselves.
The authoritarian father of the
conservative right believes in high standards, but zero
support. The indulgent mother of the left believes in
high support, but zero standards.
The Radical Centrist
Paternalist believes in high standards PLUS high support.
Scrap welfare and affirmative action, but replace them
with *stronger* -- perhaps even more-costly! -- programs
that *build* self-sufficiency and high achievement in
culturally and structurally impoverished communities.
Where, for example, the goal is to raise up black
fathers, not render them superfluous.
Not just blacks, of course;
they are merely the most visible and vocal. We need a
portfolio of programs than apply to different communities
based on their specific needs, focused mostly on history
and culture rather than skin color. But the well-known
pathologies of black culture make them the ideal "early
adopter" for these kinds of efforts.
The usual Christian Right answer is
that this should be the church's job, and I agree 100%. But
the church isn't doing it (I'm working on it ;-). If the
church had solved this problem, we wouldn't be talking about
it, so its hard to fault government for trying.
Government has a responsibility to solve problems for its
citizens, or else it loses legitimacy. But it shouldn't
pretend to have all the answers. Government needs to
articulate the goals, invest where appropriate, but also
leave plenty of room for social entrepreneurs and
faith-based organizations to work on the problem without
government interference; in fact, with government support!
As usual, I don't have all the answers. But this time, I
believe I have the right question, or at least one of the
right questions.
-- Ernie P.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
|
