As someone who takes phone calls from angry constituents on a regular basis, I’ve learned that Republicans fall into one of two categories: they’re either ignorant or soulless. Lately, it’s been more of the latter. In Congress, a few of my office’s constituents say, Republicans care more about the “party line” than struggling homeowners or the unemployed. For them, the series of opposition no-votes on the stimulus bill only proved that elected officials routinely fail to return the generosity that the voting public bestowed upon them when they put them into office in the first place.
Most human beings are sensitive, even Republicans. Unfortunately, we too often confuse concern or sensitivity with action. Conservatives like to warn about the dangers of good intentions. On the surface we’re saying that we often don't succeed in doing the good things we intend. But it also means that we often don't succeed in creating the capacity to do the things we should.
Consider the green-conscious liberals who nevertheless don’t have the time or means to participate in the programs the militant, college-dropout Greenpeace volunteers are peddling on street corners. “I would love to help, but I don’t have any money right now,” they’ll say, because they don’t want those dropouts, who are saving our planet and giving backrubs to poor African children, to think their hearts aren’t pure. But why is it that everyone is strapped in the first place? Perhaps if they had been more responsible with their money in the past (assuming they really do care more about the environment than math textbooks and marijuana) they could exhibit some much-needed generosity now. In all seriousness, if there is something worth devoting resources to, but you’ve squandered all you have on other things, good intentions are “about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest.”
I do not think it’s possible to be generous with someone else’s property. It is not generous to steal somebody else’s money and give it to charity. It is not generous to tax someone, no matter what bracket he’s in, and give the resulting revenue to someone who failed to perform due diligence on his mortgage. It is not generous to let your friend cut in line; you must give up your spot entirely or else you’re just screwing everyone standing behind you.
Studies have shown that conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to charity, even if you account for the difference in church-based donations. Conservatives and liberals can both be generous. But when it comes to taxing and spending, generosity is really only relevant when it’s your own money in play. It does not take that good of a conscience to vote for increased healthcare spending when it’s funded by other people’s paychecks (and given the weak revenue projections on our President’s ‘soak-the-top-two-percent’ plan, most likely the paychecks of other people’s children as well).
Do you know who is actually generous? The person who pays off his debts and takes care of his children. Him doing so means that someone else doesn’t have to. The state doesn’t have to mop up his mistakes with other people’s money. Why we praise Democrats (or Republicans) who can’t keep a sustainable budget, diminishing government’s capacity to spend money responsibly without burdening the taxpayer and the economy, and not the people who advocate and practice responsibility and accountability I'll never understand.
Being generous to others is a good thing. And while intentions can be good, intention without capacity is worthless. If you want to be good, be effective. In the meantime, when calling your congressman's office, take it easy on the swears.
No comments:
Post a Comment