I. See Me, Help Me

The Limits of Merit & Choice

It’s not a fabrication, a lie. It’s just not the whole truth. And the part that’s been omitted—or is it just ignored?—should provide the basis for us to consider providing better for those most in need. I’m speaking of our unwarranted overemphasis on personal merit and, as we’ve discussed elsewhere, freedom of choice.

It really does appeal to us, all of us. It panders to our self-esteem, our sense of self-determination and self-sufficiency, our self-congratulatory tendencies. We want to believe that we earned what we have—that we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, mapped out our plans, prepared ourselves, then worked hard, harder than the next guy, earning our way to our definition of success. And in a very real, experiential sense, it is true. (Most of us feel that’s exactly what we've done!)

We also want to believe that it’s not our fault if the next guy wasn’t as ambitious, didn’t prepare himself as well, didn’t work as hard, wasn’t as able. It’s not our fault if he was too lazy or irresponsible, lacked discipline, character or interpersonal capability. It’s not our fault if he wasn’t intelligent, talented or savvy enough. It’s not our fault if he was too different, unstable or disabled. We each get what we earn, what we deserve. (Isn't that right?)

And what of the poor, the competitive failures of whatever stripe? Why, they just suffer the natural consequences of their own failings and failure. And that's not our fault, either. How could it be? (So, why should it be our responsibility?)

Of course it’s not your fault or mine—at least not most of the time. But most often, neither is it theirs. Notably, in a most real sense, we are no more the author of our successes than they are of their failures. Heresy, indeed! But let me briefly explain why, in more empirical terms, this is also true.

You understand the continuing discussion and research about nature and nurture, of course. We discussed it in Choices. You’re familiar with the debate about how much of the way we are is the result of the genetic legacy of our parents and forbears, and how much is the result of the way we are conditioned and schooled, what we learn in our families, communities and cultures. What is not in doubt is that the combination of our genes, family, culture and education determines who we are, how we act, and the likely limits of our potential and achievements. And if most everyone still has some alternatives, some choices, those afforded the least able of our brethren, the least fortunate, are so many fewer and so much narrower, and their ability to act on them is so much less.

The irony is that we discuss it, make casual affirming observations about it in everyday life, even ponder it with personal satisfaction or dismay, but then go about our lives dealing with each other, making personal and organizational decisions and crafting public policy as though we didn’t know it or didn’t believe it. The truth is that the power and perceived importance of our public, cultural half-myths trump what we instinctively know and what science more resoundingly than ever confirms. The truth is inconvenient and unwelcome to our sense of independence, accomplishment and self worth. It can coexist only uncomfortably with those cultural values.

So, just how right, how defensible, then, is that laissez-faire foundation on which we stand? How fair or egalitarian, how ethical and moral, how humane and intelligent are our assumptions about getting what we earn or deserve? How even is the playing field, how just the result? Is it not true that there, but for the deal of the genetic cards, the spin of the birth-place roulette, go I—dross in the crucible of our competitive society, failed or failing, and much in need of the help and support of my community, my more fortunate brethren? Shouldn’t the integrity of an accountable, civilized society demand a full understanding and honest acknowledgment of this reality? Wouldn’t it respond honestly, responsibly, and effectively to the needs of the innocent poor, infirm and unable? Wouldn't health care, education, and subsistence living be their right as it would everyone's?

(My Christian faith informs me that we are each just who God intended us to be based on the dictates of our singular spiritual paths—and the genetic endowment and life circumstances that deliver us there. And more, that we have responsibilities and accountabilities for one another. That is the signal characteristic of faith community, and any real community.)

First written: July 2006


See Me, Help Me

So deny it with rationalizations, or ignore it if you must. But there is a social responsibility that accrues, a moral obligation that must be continually honored, in recognition of the generous provision made to the successful upper and middle classes by our open, competitive market economy. And it is owing to those unable to compete or defeated in the competition: the poor, the infirm, the unable.

True, there is no doubt that market opportunities and competition bring out the best efforts of the able and well prepared—but it is just as true that they defeat those least able and least prepared. And while it’s also true that other economic systems or approaches often result in even greater numbers of poor and unable than our own, does that alone justify our willingness to look with acceptance on the circumstances of our poor? Or do we think that the fact and clear evidence of those less successful or failed are necessary in order to acknowledge and pay tribute to our relative success? A tough, hurtful question, perhaps, but one so often too close to the truth—an unavoidable, if disavowed, aspect of human nature.

And just for the record, there are also economic systems in other nations more friendly and generous to the poor, ill and unable than we are--the Nordics and Germany come first to mind--strong economies, but more balanced combinations of open, competitive markets and helping social programs. But for ideological or selfish reasons, some among us have demonized them by labeling them more “socialist” countries. A more accurate characterization might be more socially advanced, more accountable, more humane—and for those seeking or abiding with God, more in keeping with His heart and His counsel.

Surely by now the pejorative use of the term socialism must be understood as an anachronistic red herring, a purposeful diversion from social responsibility and effective problem solving. At worst, it is merely an excuse for ignoring the needs, the pleas for help, of many of our countrymen and neighbors—and avoiding the cost that goes with it. Why not eschew, dismiss with prejudice, such misleading references and ad hominem attacks for what they are: just bogie man politics, just setting up an ideological straw man, just selfishly trying to avoid accountability? Why not focus on being a more caring, accountable society, on communities seeing to the basic needs of their own?

Questions?

Okay, you have some questions of your own: Aren’t there already sufficient incentives and public assistance programs for the poor and unable? And what about the valuable work of private charities and church ministries? Is there any more we can realistically, practically do? We have so often managed these programs so poorly, aren’t we just pouring good money in after bad? Aren’t we already at the point of diminishing returns? And regardless, won’t the poor always be with us?

Your questions are fair questions, all, and I once embraced the same, seemingly rhetorical questions myself. But they are not rhetorical questions. There are better answers.

Yes, nongovernmental organizations, private charitable trusts, faith-based ministries, and other nonprofit charities, too, are all part of the answer. But a relatively small part. They do complement government assistance programs notably, importantly. Their passion, their roles in identifying need and leading in innovation are unique and irreplaceable. And by all means available, please do your part to support them as generously as you can. But broad-based government assistance programs are still the only way to comprehensively, competently serve all our people in need and at risk. And yes, there is always need for better management, more accountability—and more money. And, it is important that we regard our taxes rendered as an important part of our giving to those in need. (But that is such a reach for so many, isn’t it?)

There are many who might also rethink some of the judgments and labels they’ve so easily come to embrace. And I would like them to reconsider the hasty, incomplete analyses so often done, and the self-serving economic judgments that always seem to follow from operation of our half-myths about merit. I would like them to reconsider whether bottom-line economics might not actually support spending more public money on people at risk in our competitive economic, education, and healthcare systems. But, one might ask, how can that make economic sense—and how is it right or fair?

It’s just so hard to get past a selfish perspective on the fairness issue—isn’t it?—even when we understand. But understanding should push us further on to questions about the limits of merit—shouldn’t it?—that, and how we define ourselves as community and society, what our standards are for what a competitive, wealthy, often charitable society should provide to it’s least able and least prepared to compete. We’ll return to these issues presently; but first, I know you would rather hear more about how it could be in society’s best economic interest, yours and mine, to spend more money to improve the lot of so many in need.

The Economics of Helping Others

The basic answer, of course, is in turning many more users of public resources (the poor and unable) into providers of public resources (gainfully employed taxpayers). First, consider the social costs of the poor, undereducated and chronically unhealthy. Tally the cost of long-term welfare, prisons (which are the resulting long-term residences of too many of our failed poor), and a broken, misdirected healthcare system that too often provides only the most expensive emergency care to those most in need, those growing more unhealthy day by day.

Then, consider the opportunity cost: the lost productivity, of those same people were they well-fed and clothed, healthy, and sufficiently educated or trained for productive, tax-paying employment. In the longer term, the additional cost of a healthy, better educated, trained and gainfully employed person, a more stable and contributing family and community member, will most likely be less than the social costs of failing to provide the needed aid, health care or education—and it will likely decrease over time. And the upside, the economic benefit to all, is the added economic productivity of the increasing numbers of new taxpayers paying increasing amounts of taxes.

But, no, it will not happen over night. Most likely, it’s a multi-generational investment. We know that parents, first, and then local culture, schools and peer experiences, are the principal determinants of a young person’s aspirations for education and vocation—and of his or her success with both. We also know that successful programs must address all these elements if they are to succeed.

As a first principle, there seems to be overwhelming evidence that we best reduce the numbers of poor by providing them competency and command over the subjects of a comprehensive education. Our experience to date tells us that leaving poor families inadequately supported and education spending limited to the amounts spent in suburban school systems is often not nearly enough, fair or not. It tells us we have to spend more money on more accountable inner city and rural preschools, elementary, middle, and high schools--and on the most able, best trained teachers. They must be smaller schools with smaller teacher-student ratios, higher expectations, and more personal attention and guidance—whatever the necessary means or cost for a particular community or state may be. And the school-supported involvement of a parent or parents will often make all the difference in the success or failure of the effort.

But, as Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” would also suggest, we cannot get to that place unless a subsistence living and basic healthcare are as much a right of all as they are a need of all. Only then might poor children also be healthy children, and in their best state of readiness to learn. Only then might poor children be likely to grow up to be healthy, well-educated and productive citizens. And then it would be reasonable to expect that the number of criminals and prisoners produced by poverty—and the number of prisons to house them—would be significantly reduced in number, as well. It is easy enough to see how it all could unfold, but a lot of work and persuasion must be done before it can become a national reality. (And these are also the policies and programs that will give new groups in our society an easier stake, a greater, earlier sense of productive contribution and identity in the greatest society of immigrants on earth.)

But it will all cost more money now, even though and especially because the break-even point may take a generation or more to reach. But, if we start investing more generously, more intelligently now, then our grandchildren and each of the succeeding generations will likely see a notable reduction in the number of the poor and unable. Successively, each will inherit lower costs of more effective programs, many more productive citizens, and a corresponding lower individual tax burden. Is it a promise? No, but it appears likely. And it has to be the responsible approach, the right approach, doesn’t it?

You still have doubts and concerns, I know.

Defining Fairness?

But if the long-term economic promise does not resonate with you, if you’re not inclined to invest in the deferred benefit inuring in time to your grandchildren and future generations, then please, tell me more of this social or ideological tenet of faith that is so often, so ardently and self-interestedly espoused: the unfairness or inequity of adequately, effectively providing for those in need.

Have I not made a fair case? Aren't there relatively clear, functionally-defined limits to the notion of merit as arbiter of everyone’s basic opportunities, successes, and quality of life? Are we talking about anything less than what a truly civilized, humane society of great opportunity and wealth should in good conscience provide to those who are ill-equipped or not equipped to compete effectively? Now those are rhetorical questions.

But if your notions of fairness are uncomfortable traveling companions with mine, and if you find my economic considerations unwelcome or merely irksome, then how do you feel about the importance of maintaining social and political stability in America? How do you feel about the shrinking middle class and growing chasm between those Americans who have the most and those who have the least? Are you concerned that America’s working middle class are falling further behind economically and losing increasing numbers of jobs with each passing year? Aren’t these also good questions?

For those who have jobs, our corporations and other businesses can no longer be relied upon as adequate providers of health care and retirement incomes. And our political parties and government have been too polarized in recent administrations to deal with reforming social security and Medicare financing—never mind fashioning a workable national healthcare program. The increasing numbers without jobs or underemployed, including many of our young adults, increasingly can only register despair at their situation, and wonder how it has come to this. These are uncomfortable signs and measures, and are there for all who would recognize them. And history informs us that social despair visited upon increasing percentages of middle-class and poor people can easily lead to social and political instability.

Equal, effective education, basic healthcare, unemployment and retirement incomes, and vocational training and retraining are the least we must provide to all Americans if an acceptable, stable social contract and political process is to be protected in America today.

So, I’m naïve, Pollyannaish, you say; I tilt at windmills. And especially with regard to basic healthcare: it’s just a larger, more complex and expensive undertaking than I appreciate, you say. Perhaps. But if that is so, how do Germany, the Nordic countries, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and most all advanced, industrialized countries in Europe and Asia manage to provide it to their people—and, on average, at approximately half the cost per capita as the U.S., as well? Oh, you’ve heard that medical care in those places is less advanced, less effective, less efficient than ours. For whom? Tell that to so many of our poor, working middle class and young adults who have limited health care or none at all—right here in the good old US of A. (In 2005, over 47 million people had none.)

This is merely one more example of how poorly competitive markets provide, allocate and manage public-interest goods and services. Consider our manufacturing, professional and service companies, whose response to competitive pressures has been to continually reduce further their contributions to employee health care coverage, while more and more provide little or none at all. Our “efficient, cost-effective” companies are turning out to be very poor stewards of their employees’ health care, much as they have been of their retirement incomes and our shared environment. It is to them just another cost to be reduced, if not eliminated.

And if you think our U.S. healthcare system is so competent, so accommodating, so efficient—for those covered or who can afford it, that is—then you might come and visit some of the doctors, clinics and other healthcare organizations to which so many Americans have had the misfortune of entrusting their medical care. You might also consider whether you haven’t been too long, too much influenced by the steady drumbeat of self-interested propaganda and lobbying by the American medical establishment: profits-first health insurers and pharmaceutical companies, to be sure, but also the AMA, hospitals and other health services providers. Then I would have to ask you, who is naïve?

And as to cost, consider this: more and more high-tech, pharmaceutical, and other new but very expensive methods continue to be developed that extend the end of life for only short periods of time: days, weeks, or possibly months. And I’ve read that about 30% of health care costs now go to the relatively few in the last year of life. For many, it may seem worth it, regardless of the cost, if the decision involves their life or the life of a loved one—but only if they are among the fortunate ones adequately covered by health insurance, or are people of considerable means.

But how can private and government providers of health care insurance reasonably elect to provide extraordinarily expensive short-term extensions of life for the elderly or terminally ill when those resources could be more equitably, more ethically, more responsibly used to provide basic health care for so many with little or no coverage at all. These are the policy decisions for strong, socially responsible government leaders. They are the critical economic and social trade-offs that must be made by a community or nation that attempts to best provide for and protect all its people. It’s a matter of social economics and responsibility, social and medical ethics, and good government.

So, can we solve all our problems, prepare, heal or rehabilitate every person for the better, more productive life? No, you’re right, that is most unlikely. Some, whose circumstances or disabilities are most daunting, will remain in one sense or another in the care of the state. Some will continue on paths that lead to long-term support and care, some to prison. But we can be more intelligent, timelier in the way we identify and address the problems of people most in need or at risk, from both a humanitarian and economic perspective. And we can also be better neighbors, better countrymen, more compassionate, more charitable—and more accountable.

And so, if you would herald with awe and pride the power of our open, competitive markets—and why wouldn’t you?—and the handsome provision it makes for you and the vast majority of us who thrive under it, then please, likewise acknowledge that those who fare poorly under its winner-loser realities are most often no more the authors of their failures than the rest of us are of our successes. And that it is in our best interest—all or ours, together—to extend the open hand of responsible, accountable community to them, bearing the extra expense to help them, providing for them to the extent necessary, so that a sense of success and a productive life is more likely their legacy as it is ours.

But, the answer is still no, isn’t it?

(In the context of both Christian identity and final judgment, my faith also informs me that we are called to an attentive and generous orientation toward the poor, ill, aged and disabled, and also toward our prisoners and the strangers in our country and community. It is not so much the practicality or potential success of the service that matters spiritually, but rather the spirit and heart that responds compassionately with assistance and resources to help those most in need. That is second in importance only to our love of God, and our gratitude that He first loves us. But this orientation too seldom seems to find its way into the everyday expressions of many Christian lives.)

First written: July 2006, updated February 2008

© Gregory E. Hudson 2007