No government program can replicate the respect and hope borne from the blessings and, yes, tragedies of life.
The stereotypical image of the Republican Party is that of defender of wealth and privilege, friend of corporate America. This image is no doubt fostered because the GOP takes startling positions such as low taxes are good, capitalism and wealth creation are a source of freedom not its enemy, and one has a right not to be taxed, double-taxed, triple-taxed, and then taxed at death. Shocking, I know. Further, Republicans by and large line up next to corporate America across the trenches from their arch nemeses: trial lawyers, labor unions and their wholly owned subsidiary, the Democratic Party. In principle and truth, however, Republicans champion in policy and spirit, the underdog.
At its core, the Republican Party champions the belief that the individual, not the government, can create the greatest good if only left unshackled to pursue his or her dreams. It is that core principle that opposes affirmative action based on liberty-excluding criteria like race and gender, and supports the belief that the individual should enjoy the fruits of his or her labor rather than entrust the state with it in the form of increasing taxes. And it is this principle that lauds the underdogs, those individuals who through hard work, brains, and talent, succeed where statistics suggest failure. It is an idealism prizing opportunity, not outcome. A belief in the effort, not the effect. Republicans love the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," "government programs and bad luck be damned" success stories. The Colin Powell’s, Condi Rice’s, and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s of this world. I was one.
I grew up with a single mother, a nurse who worked two and three jobs at a time. I was an honor roll student and All-star baseball athlete. Until the stroke. At age seventeen I suffered a brain hemorrhage from a well-known but rare brain malformation. I survived the stroke with no deficits or limitations; two weeks later I was shooting hoops, six months after I graduated high school with honors. Unfortunately, the treatment which saved my life did leave me with a disability. While saving my life, an experimental radiation treatment (read linear accelerator) left me with an impaired and weak left side. And I recall my mother telling me as the doctor screwed a metal halo into my skull, that I just had to get through this, and the rest of life’s struggles would pale in comparison. And she was as right as a mother’s insights typically are: it was a perspective that shaped each of my challenges for the next decade.
Told I would never live independently, never attend college, I charged ahead. The cult of low expectations and offensive sympathy which permeate the disability community rigged the playing field so that I could not possibly fail something I so obviously could not achieve. No one expected I’d amount to anything and anything was easier than brain surgery. But that was my entitlement program – a naïve belief that having endured so much so young, the rest of life was to be a breeze. It lacked a monthly check, but was immensely more valuable – a “gut-check” which could be cashed everyday.
So I tried, and I worked hard, and I risked. And I failed. And I succeeded. I went on to graduate college and law school at the top of my classes. Before graduating college, I was a respected staffer and campaign operative for, among others, the Governor of the largest state in the country, and earned a full scholarship to law school. I worked full-time on top of a full college course load, I had many friends and I earned respect no government program could ever confer.
I went on to be a judicial law clerk to the Presiding Justice of an Appeals Court, a lawyer with a nationally renowned law firm, a lobbyist, and eventually the founder of my own firm. I matched against and beat some of this nation’s finest lobbyists, lawyers, litigators, and political operatives. And I witnessed firsthand a government bureaucracy utterly incapable of comprehending that a disabled person might choose to reject entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare benefits. A close examination of these programs revealed them for the quicksand they were. Once on the rolls, the disincentives to working are manifest (reduction in benefits) and the risks of rejecting the aid multiple. But determined to stand on my own two feet and compete I risked failure, poverty and rejected the aid. I pulled myself up by the skin of my teeth and I succeeded. I bought a home, a German luxury car. I owed no one anything and had accomplished all of my professional goals before I was 30. And everything was, compared to brain surgery, a breeze. Until the meat truck hit me.
Yeah, I said meat truck. I was crossing the street one sunny day when a careless delivery driver hauling a truckload of meat slammed into me as I crossed the street, in the crosswalk no less. More than a decade of post-stroke recovery was erased in an instant. I suffered a neurological injury which essentially now commands my body to try to rip itself in half. My professional life was in ruins, I lived with chronic and unremitting pain and I took more pills than Courtney Love on a weekend bender. I never asked the world for anything other than a chance to stand on my own two feet and live it my way. And I did it, apparently pretty well for awhile. And I didn’t know what to do anymore as I tried to hang on to a life I no longer felt entitled to, a life I could no longer earn.
My entire political and personal philosophy, my self-image, is tied up in the conservative belief that I am entitled to only what I can earn with hard work, talent, and brains – to only those opportunities your bootstraps can reach. But I asked, “What do you do when you can’t live your own ideal, when your bootstraps strangle you in a daily reminder that you’re out of rope? When it hurts so bad there’s nothing left but to hope that it will someday just stop?”
You grasp the end of the bootstrap you have left, and you pull. And that you fall each night no longer able to grasp the strap matters not. You look long into Nietzsche’s abyss, and sense it looking back into you. But you pull. Everyday. And you let status go, you ignore keeping up with the Joneses. You survive. And you don’t turn to the government for help. You tap credit lines, you cut costs, you push your body until it bleeds, you discard the deceptive cradle of prescription medication, and you get it done. And sometimes, as did I, you survive long enough for karma to rebound. You survive long enough for your mind, spirit, and body to heal. Now a published author, successfully practicing law again, and in love, you renew your faith in the individual. Such is the hope of conservatism — that as individuals we can create the last, best hope for our country, our communities, and ourselves. No government program can replicate the respect and hope borne from the blessings and, yes, tragedies of life.
The disabled community suffers far higher unemployment than any other minority group. Educational outcomes are abysmal despite federal and state laws requiring equal and comparable education. This notwithstanding billions in federal and state matching funds spent on the rehabilitation, training, and education of disabled persons of all ages. While the disability movement’s activism embraced the passage of the opportunity-centric Americans with Disabilities Act, the movement’s focus has prominently centered on demands for more government largesse, more understanding of “structural hurdles,” and increasing Social Security Disability payments. Nearly 35 years later, and untold billions of dollars spent since the Rehabilitation Act of 1972 was passed to alleviate and incentivize the disabled, poverty rates are uncomfortably high.
The actor and comedian Bill Cosby has garnered acclaim and acrimony as of late for several speeches in which he urged the black community to embrace education, initiative, and most importantly self responsibility. Perhaps it is time to ask, where is the disabled community’s Bill Cosby?
The offensive implication propagated by the disabled community’s activists that the disabled “need” government aid is facially absurd and offensively apologist. The foremost cosmologist in the world, Stephen Hawking, is disabled, profoundly so. Both major political parties in America have been led by disabled individuals: Bob Dole in 1996 and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The disabled can be, and clearly are, stakeholders in the world.
The black community once immersed itself in semantic pilgrimages of political correctness, fretting over didactics such as the propriety of Ebonics or the preference for the term “African-American.” So too has the disabled community drowned in labels such as “differently-abled” or “persons with disabilities,” in a sad attempt to secure dignity through epithet instead of by actual gain and achievement. At what point will a sympathetic taxpayer body politic grow weary of subsidizing an entire group? Moreover, at what point will the disabled community insist on initiative and responsibility from itself? At what point will that community demand every person risk the chance of failure and higher expectations?
WOW. What a story. You, sir, are worthy of the utmost of respect and admiration. Not because you eschew government “help,” but because you chose not to let your misfortunes change who you are. Your victories are a grand testament to one glaring, unvarnished fact: Each of us are capable of doing so much more than we think.
Although you didn’t really mention it, I’m guessing that you didn’t solo it as you battled back from your infirmities. Doubtless you had the help of family and friends to assist. If so, this further strengthens the case for conservatism, for conservatism is all about strong families and relationships.
Government steals from us opportunities to be compassionate. It intervenes in the compassion transacton, throwing around money that belongs to others. There is no nobility here, no caring, no human element. A program cannot be compassionate, only humans can.
Whatever the case, your determination, your strength of character, and your willingness to take on the obstacles of life is worthy of celebration. Yeah, baby.
One other thing: You didn’t mention the role of faith in your journey. Did this come the bear in some way?
This is one of the most profoundly inspirational pieces I have read in a long time. Thank you.
Disabilities vary greatly. I am very happy for the outcome of your hardwork. I have a son who has
autism. There is no comparison. And there is no comparison with my son and a child I know
who has severe CP, has undergone multiple surgeries, and is unable to even sit up on his own or
communicate, or a hundred other things. A lot of people who have severe disabilities need help
from others and the government. I agree that each person should try to make it the best that
they can..but there are a lot of people who cannot. I don’t appreciate your blanket approach of
pulling out the minimal supports that are there for the children and adults who truly need substantial
supports and who will never be able to overcome permanent physical, developmental and neurological
disabilities. I’m staying up at night worrying that the money/life insurances etc. we are trying to get
together will be enough to make sure our son is cared for when we are gone and you are writing
and advocating taking away some necessary help. Stop and think about the total disabled
population rather than just yourself and stop making generalizations.
SP amplifies his personal difficulties into being offended. Each of us suffers tragedies and obstacles in life, but SP’s autistic son is somehow an excuse to dismiss the author and everyone else who suffers.
SP then takes it a step further. He asserts that his son has a right to other peoples’ money via government help. He wants government to force you and me to pay up.
SP, there are so many people and organizations out there waiting to help people like your son, and none of them are government. When people choose compassion, rather than having if forced upon them, they are given the opportunity to be truly human.
Post your e-mail address, and give people a chance to respond with compassion.
Thanks SR, I thought pretty much the same thing. It’s great that McClelland had the ability to rise above his challenges, but there are people with retardation so bad that they cannot even put a fork into their mouths. And what about anxiety or depression?
It’s certainly true that welfare and Social Security are over used, and that people who could do without it take it anyway because it’s easier. But there’s a line between doling support out to everyone and leaving severely disabled people to starve in the streets. I guess we could give them licenses to beg, as was done hundreds of years ago. That seemed to work. Right? Anyone? Anyone?
Thanks SR, I thought pretty much the same thing. It’s great that McClelland had the ability to rise above his challenges, but there are people with retardation so bad that they cannot even put a fork into their mouths. And what about anxiety or depression, which, by definition, keeps them from having the can-do attitude that McClelland is blessed with?
It’s certainly true that welfare and Social Security are over used, and that people who could do without it take it anyway because it’s easier. But there’s a line between doling support out to everyone and leaving severely disabled people to starve in the streets. I guess we could give them licenses to beg, as was done hundreds of years ago. That seemed to work. Right? Anyone? Anyone?
Stephen and Audriana,
I too have a son with disabilities. Not the physical kind you speak of but severe mental, behavior and learning disorders. I have a neurological chronic pain condition of my own to contend with, and my wife has crippling knee pain and severe arthritis. Unlike you however, I don’t take Mr. McClelland’s remarks as a “pulling out the minimal supports that are there for the children and adults who truly need substantial supports and who will never be able to overcome permanent physical, developmental and neurological disabilities.” My wife is a thorough going liberal who firmly believes “the system” is supposed to provide us with support for our disabilities. I am a conservative libertarian who believes government not only inappropriate but ineffectual in dealing with these kinds of problems. The function of government is first to protect the nation, and only secondly to promote the greater welfare of the people. The best provider of our needs is ourselves, family, friends, local community, &c and only lastly government. The more remote the connection, the more unreliable, tenuous, and more given to ulterior motives is the ‘service’. There is a distinct relationship between being free and being “cared for”. To the degree we are cared for we are dependent and, therefore, not free. Slavery does not consist only in being forced to work for another, but also in being so dependent on another we can make no decisions on our own; but must refer all decisions to those providing our means.
Yes, there are a tiny few who benefit from the largess of government who might not survive and thrive otherwise. However, might they not also have survived and thrived on non-governmental charities to the same or greater degree? Charity is not new with modern governments, and the private kind has been providing the highest level of support to those in need of it long before government came into the picture. We tend to see the charities of the past as insufficient only because we are accustomed to the massive charity of modern states. If you look closely, however, at how charitable establishments were developing just prior to the modern welfare state you will see they were getting better and more effective with time. It may well be they’d have reached the same volume of largess as government today provide, though at a much greater efficiency. As government has come to dominate this venue, we can only guess. Consider, though, that for every dollar government takes in for welfare set-asides, it doles out less than 30-cents. The average charity, on the other hand is the inverse; dispersing 71-cents to recipients out of each dollar taken in. This is more than twice the efficiency, yet far less efficient than it was before charities were firmly regulated.
Big charities are not really an answer either because they are nearly as wasteful as government. Government encourages them because they are easier to regulate and people prefer giving to them because government vouches for them. But so what? If charities are more than twice as efficient as government overall, what must this say about super-charities like United Way and the Red Cross who aren’t? Remember, the complaints made against Red Cross and their misuse of directed-contributions post 9/11? How much more efficient a system of charities would we have without these middlemen? They act more like brokers than charities where the real work is be done. They are a big business, concerned more with profits and keeping books than in what is accomplished. How much worse, then, must be federal handouts where there is no accountability whatsoever?
The real efficiencies are to be found at the local level and in private ‘person-to-person’ giving. Government competes unfairly against these small private-charities; burdening them with regulation driven paperwork intended to keep out scam artists, but really favoring government by making charities less efficient than they would be otherwise. Much of this regulation is justified as a means to prevent the kind of fraud common prior to government getting in the charity business. Instead, it only serves to drive out small, legitimate charities; in turn favoring consolidation. Frauds are with us as much today as they were in the days of snake-oil, tent-meetings, and goldmine interests. Swindlers care nothing about ‘rules’, making regulation strictly about administering and penalizing those who play by government’s rules (i.e., good people who are the last to cheat anyone). Those regulations become coercive and discouraging of their object whenever they penalize those who merely fail to do business the way government says they must. The volume of rules promulgated, require charities hire lawyers and professional administrators to sort them all out and keep from making serious blunders. Thus, they end up increasing the costs of administering charities and reducing the amount available for services without doing much of anything about deterring the frauds. As one of the links below shows, it is not uncommon that a lot of small charities just decide it isn’t worth it and give up.
(cont.)
(cont.)
The final (and most relevant) problem with governmental charity is that it is not charity. Charity is something freely given by those who produce, not something coerced by majoritarian edict. You are concerned that some means be available for sustaining your afflicted loved ones, people who cannot take care of themselves. Well and good. Let us say, though, there is no government system of supports; and you decide it is unfair that your neighbor (whose children are all healthy, bright and industrious) is thriving while you struggle to provide for yours. Let’s call this neighbor Jones and say he is the wealthiest member of your community. Jones gives generously in church and to various good works, but still not enough to satisfy your child’s needs (or at least to your mind). Moreover, you resent having to suffer Jones’ charity and his admonitions to change your ways (e.g., work harder, economize, invest, &c) each time he gives it. You would much prefer it were called “public assistance” and considered a ‘right’. So, you decide it is okay to hold Jones up at gunpoint, taking from him an amount sufficient to your child’s needs as you believe is your right. Does it matter whether you do this alone or in concert with a majority of your neighbors; all of whom see no wrong is ‘redistributing’ Jones’ wealth so long as it does not burden them?
That is what government does, and it does so to micromanage– not fix problems. It starts by holding up the extremely wealthy and working its way down almost to the point of open revolt. It gets a majority of voters to agree it would be a good and wise thing, but with an understanding only the wealthiest citizens (usually top 5%) will be affected. It is complained (from below) that it is still not enough because it is never enough; and so the tax base is expanded until nearly half of us are forced to submit to be systematically fleeced. The other half (the poorest and most liberal) can be counted on to force the rest to abide by “their” decision.
Charity is not a power delegated to the federal government and is unspecifically prohibited by the 10th Amendment. If you think our founders hadn’t thought that far ahead, think again. Governmental charity was not new with the 19th century or socialism. The Romans practiced it two-thousand years ago and it became the same political football for them it is for us now. Emperors and their minions learned they could nullify the power of the Senate and patrician-class through public largess. Rome’s ‘bread-and-circus’, sinecures, and charities bankrupted her treasury, corrupted her administrators, discouraged local industry, destabilized the republic, attracted wastrels and cutthroats, and alienated her more industrious citizens. Our founders, steeped in this history and its lessons, saw the churches and towns as the proper repositories of charity. Much is made of the Constitution’s preamble where it includes the phrase ‘general welfare’ among its objects. Yet, nowhere does it make a provision for public charity as an object of government or a power granted to the federal system.
So what’s wrong with a little coerced giving (given you’re a socialist and ends matter to you more than means)? For one thing, it is less efficient in meeting the needs of the truly helpless than uncoerced charity for several reasons. First, it attracts the lazy; who then absorb the lion’s share of benefits. Second, it drives up the cost of those services most needful by the handicapped through an excessive demand placed on them. Third, it drives up the cost of everything else through the strain put on community by those without any incentive to work while still demanding a full share in the product. Fourth, it squeezes the economy through taxation: taking money out of circulation without providing any real benefit – too much of which damps spending as people adjust to an artificial cash shortage. Finally, it effectively reduces charity itself, because people who are taxed to death feel less inclined to give and government is now in charge of giving. Therefore, given that government is extremely wasteful, taxation coercive and inefficient, and defeats its own benevolent purpose, why is it something that anyone, be they libertarian or otherwise, would want?
(cont.)
(cont.)
Further reading:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005414.asp
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=751&FS=Charity+and+Free+Will
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=210&sortorder=articledate
http://www.mises.org/story/1722
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9325a757a8.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/560405/posts
http://www.urban.org/publications/310256.html (shows tax breaks don’t really promote more giving, just a vote getter)
http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009430.html (inefficiency in government and competition with private sector services)
The frauds are still with us (little thanks to big government):
http://www.gofso.com/Premium/LE/15_le_cg/fg/fg-Charity_Reg.html
http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/Telemarketing/Outbound/Minor/donations.htm
http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=118700005
http://www.senate.gov/comm/finance/general/prg071201a.pdf
http://www.fraud.org/tips/internet/charity.htm
(cont.)
Further reading:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005414.asp
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=751&FS=Charity+and+Free+Will
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=210&sortorder=articledate
http://www.mises.org/story/1722
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9325a757a8.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/560405/posts
http://www.urban.org/publications/310256.html (shows tax breaks don’t really promote more giving, just a vote getter)
http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009430.html (inefficiency in government and competition with private sector services)
The frauds are still with us (little thanks to big government):
http://www.gofso.com/Premium/LE/15_le_cg/fg/fg-Charity_Reg.html
http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/Telemarketing/Outbound/Minor/donations.htm
http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=118700005
http://www.senate.gov/comm/finance/general/prg071201a.pdf
http://www.fraud.org/tips/internet/charity.htm