Conservatives should be familiar with the argument that state intervention destroys communal bonds. Back in March, I wrote:
So what happens when the state starts taking care of the poor, the elderly, and the sick? Well, we don’t do it ourselves. It suddenly becomes possible to walk past a hungry person, because we can tell ourselves that the government will take care of the problem. Taxes let us fulfill our societal obligations by writing a check, which is easier and far less personal than any kind of meaningful interaction.
Peter Schweizer makes much the same case: conservatives care more, because if you buy into the idea that the state should be doing something, it’s simple to ignore your part in it.
But what if that isn’t it? More interesting than his argument is the data he cites:
Those surveyed were asked: ‘Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?’ Of those describing themselves as ‘conservative’, 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed.
To the question: ‘Do you get happiness by putting someone else’s happiness ahead of your own?’, 55 per cent of those who said they were ‘very conservative’ said Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were ‘very liberal’.
What if it’s not the political structures around us that influence character, but character that influences our political ideals? If that’s true, then the problem isn’t that the state is robbing us of the human connection we ought to feel; rather, the problem is that some people just don’t feel it.
Sure, it would be better if the poor were helped by charity in their neighborhoods, but let’s assume for a moment that they won’t be. In such a circumstance, it is better to have government welfare programs: state intrusion is preferable to starvation.
Maybe the Right’s conviction that private charity will help people, and the Left’s insistence on using the state, can be traced back very simply to the idea that everyone else is like me.
And if that’s so, what do we do?
Did you really just argue that liberals are cold, unfeeling selfish people? I think so…
But I think that the problem here is that it’s survey data. Conservatives and liberals have different opinions things. A shocker. A level deeper, conservatives and liberals have different ways they want to see themselves, and that comes out too.
The real data you need is at different income levels, do conservatives and liberals actually take care of their parents at different rates, or do community service at different rates, or whatever. Because the way I see it isn’t that I know I won’t take care of my family so I’d better make sure the state does, but that I see other people not doing so. The elderly had the highest poverty rate in America of any group but blacks by a long-shot before Social Security; now they are well-off. Results!
No, I’m arguing that if you assume that people feel duty towards one another, you think private charity will work; if you don’t, you don’t. This doesn’t necessarily line up with what YOU feel, though.