Liberals talk often about helping the poor, the homeless, the downtrodden, etc. And just as often they cry for more government money (tax payers money) for government programs to help these people. No doubt these Liberals are largely driven by compassion. Their hearts are in the right place, but there is something else at work in many of these same Liberals. That something is their own ego. They want to feel like they are helping, they want to be viewed as caring and compassionate, so much so in some cases that they care more about being seen as helping, than the actual results of the programs they preach about.
This is why Liberals always demand more money when some government program does not meet the desired results. Whatever it is, food stamps, unemployment benefits, you name it Liberals always assume that more money will make that program work better. Maybe another problem is how the Left defines charity. To the Left real charity comes from government. Of course, the fact that government has no money to be charitable with does not phase them. Whenever someone like me points out this inconvenient fact, Liberals try to be clever by quoting the Bible. They will quote chapter and verse about how we are called to take care of the less fortunate. And they will accuse anyone who wishes to cut, or mend, or end a social program that is failing of not being a good Christian.
What they miss is this, true charity involves you, or me digging into our OWN pocket and giving. It involves us, as individuals working to clothe, feed, or care in some other way for the needy. The charity Liberals espouse if largely not charity at all. If someone, in this case the government, takes your money then decides what needy person or people most need it that is not charity, no matter how noble the intentions are. True charity must come from our hearts, and from our own pockets, or from our own time and efforts. That is why true charity is more noble, and usually far more effective than governments efforts to be charitable with other people’s money.
This is not to say that Liberals do not give to the Salvation Army, or Red Cross, or Toys for Tots or to churches, or any other number of charitable ventures. This is not to say, or infer that Liberals are not caring, or charitable. The whole purpose is to point out how Liberals always look to a government solution first. And yes, their own feelings and egos have a great deal to do with that. RS McCain has a look at another issue with Liberal’s definition of charity that you should read. That issue? Arrogance!
In the latest, “The Paranoid Racism Of Shirley Sherrod,” Lee cites the former U.S. Department of Agriculture official on her encounter with a white farmer who sought assistance:
During his first visit with me, Roger talked nervously about his service to his country. I didn’t perceive it as nervous talk because I didn’t know him at the time. I perceived it as a white man showing that he was asking me for help but at the same time showing me he was superior. He talked about having been on a submarine and his service to his country. Referring to the foreclosure, he said, “I don’t believe my country will do this to me.”
Did you catch that? The farmer “was asking me for help.”
No, ma’am. He was asking the U.S. government for help.
My libertarian soul abhors this, by the way. If it were up to me, the whole system of federal farm subsidies would be eliminated. If a farmer can’t make a living on the farm, let him find some other line of work.
Uncle Sam shouldn’t be picking winners and losers.
The story of the Pigford scandal is a perfect example of how such a system of government largesse can be wrongfully exploited, and the fact that race was the basis of apparent favoritism is in some ways incidental to the fundamental problem. Our universities, for example, have been corrupted by the provision of federal aid, including research grants that are often used to fund redundant or useless studies in the social sciences. The entire Higher Education Bubble which Professor Glenn Reynolds has described is a direct consequence of federal meddling, including the student-loan racket.
And it is the selfish arrogance of Shirley Sherrod, even more than any accusation of racism, that should enrage us most. Here she is, a public servant entrusted as a steward of taxpayer resources, permitting her resentment of a farmer’s perceived attitude of “superiority” to influence her decision to provide him whatever assistance to which the law may entitle him. Sherrod evidently regarded her government job as a personal possession, so that her exercise of official authority conferred upon her some special dignity, so that even a U.S. Navy veteran was required to approach her with an attitude of deference and supplication.
Was the white farmer racist? Was Shirley Sherrod racist? I don’t give a damn, but government officials are not a privileged caste, and we should not be required to kiss their ridiculously overpaid asses in order for them to do their taxpayer-funded jobs.
Just another example of one of the great truths of life. Private charity is better run, more effective, and far more compassionate than government charity.