They Reap What They Sow

Have you ever wondered why the Left are such proponents of Big Government? Have you ever wondered what their motivation is? The larger question is: Do they not understand Thomas Jefferson’s maxim that “A government large enough to give you everything you want is large enough to take away everything you have”?

Or perhaps they understand it all too well.

When a Conservative addresses a problem, he does so with a full complement of facts and figures, and his argument aims at the truth of a particular issue. The conservative approach to problem solving is one of cold, hard, rational logic being brought to bear on a thoughtful resolution of the problem at hand. When a Liberal addresses the same issue, he doesn’t so much argue his position as he waxes rhapsodic about it. “Oh, the things we can accomplish if we only throw enough money at the problem!”

Money can solve some problems, but only when applied in a studied and judicious manner. The problem is, Liberals are so enamored with the perks associated with dispensing other people’s money that, as a class, they are unequivocally and adamantly opposed to ever acknowledge when money has failed to solve a problem. It’s always, “We haven’t done enough,” or “We haven’t given it enough time,” or “Those who don’t think we can solve this problem by continuing to throw money at it are fascists (or racists, or right-wing Republicans who don’t care about poor people, or black people, or ‘the children,’ or the environment, or, well, you get the picture).”

The very real difference in approach to problem solving may also be explained on another level: Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe. Where a Conservative will look at statistics and say, “Overall, our achievements are not commensurate with our investment. We should consider a different approach,” the Liberal will say, “Statistics showing that we are falling behind reflect the hard reality that Third World countries are investing in their futures while the United States continues to lag behind. We need to re-focus our resources to close this gap.” Note how one group says, “This isn’t working; let’s try something different,” the other group says, “This isn’t working; we need to keep trying the same thing over and over regardless of past performance.” Is their embrace of failure simply a failure to comprehend, or is it a calculated (and completely feigned) ignorance designed to maintain the tax-and-spend status quo?

To answer that question, we must ask ourselves a few more questions: Why does the Left insist upon setting up a Big Government to pay for so-called “entitlement programs” which do little more than propagate a Nanny State? And why are Welfare programs -- just to name one of the more obvious “entitlements” -- such delightfully smooth-running bureaucracies?

The answer is really quite simple: The “good intentions” cultivated by The Left aren’t even remotely philanthropic; they are actually quite sinister and coldly calculated. For example, consider how much more comfortable it is for everyone involved to simply send a welfare check through the mail, or deposit it electronically, than it is to have the recipient sit across a counter from a bureaucrat every month and explain why they have been on the public dole for years and years and years. The same rationale is undoubtedly behind the reason why, a number of years ago, Food Stamps -- which were actual stamps, to be redeemed for foodstuffs at the local grocery store -- were replaced by a Government-issued debit card: There was a stigma attached to standing at the checkout and having everyone see you pay with Food Stamps. Sure, there is the argument that digital transfers are more economical, but since when do governmental agencies care about what makes economic sense?

Make no mistake: The over-riding issue was that any sense of shame should be eradicated. We mustn’t have folks even thinking about their ongoing dependency upon governmental handouts. The utter lack of accountability, coupled with the virtual anonymity of these transactions, completely eliminates any sense of humility on the part of the Welfare recipient; in fact, they don’t have to consider their dependency for a single, solitary minute. And with that comes, inevitably, an increased sense of entitlement, and victimization. It becomes easier to accept and even nurture a mindset of “Why shouldn’t The Government take care of me?”

On the other side of the coin, the “enabling” Left looks at it this way: “Just take the money out of my taxes. I don’t want to have to actually look at poor people; let’s just set up an agency to send ‘em a check.” Thus they can step back from the unseemly equation altogether. No fuss, no muss. Having removed themselves from the realities of the welfare state, they free themselves to approach every media megaphone they can find to drop self-righteous platitudes about how “The Government” should “Do Something” about “Helping The Poor,” and “Why aren’t (those selfish) Republicans more interested in helping The Poor?”

Of course, what goes largely unreported is the fact that a class that has learned to be dependent upon Government largesse will rarely, if ever, do for themselves what others are so willing to do for them.

Unfortunately, there is no real motivation on either side to change the status quo. The Takers have settled, quite literally, for a third-class existence, while the Givers require nothing more of them than their vote. In this there exists an almost agricultural relationship: The Givers continue to plant the seeds of dependency and the Takers are harvested every election cycle.

To be sure, there are people who leave the welfare rolls every month; ours is an economically mobile society, after all, and we tend to move between the different economic layers throughout our lives. But what does the extended welfare experience do to our psyches? And what does it mean for generations of families who log in to the system and never leave it?

Much like the Left’s push for a bi-lingual society and their insistence on sacrificing real and meaningful education on the altar of Diversity, government-sponsored Entitlements minimize, erode, and belittle the value of real-life, flesh-and-blood human beings. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: Liberals know the price of everything but the value of nothing.