I saw this story on The New York Times today.
To make it brief, a Republican in Arizona (oh, Arizona, again) has been recruiting homeless people to run on the Green Party ticket in order to split the Democratic vote. A lot of Democrats have been denouncing this as "deceitful" and "not right" and as a corruption of the democratic (small d) process. They're right, of course.
But what makes me really angry is this: that people in power are using the least powerful to do their dirty work.
I think I need to go back a few steps and explain why I'm so angry about this.
The way-back background: my dad's a social worker who has been working with at-risk kids and youth since before I was born. I got exposed rather early to things like poverty and homelessness and general life-isn't-fairness, even if I didn't really understand the causes or the underlying structures that allow for those things. What I did grasp was this: there were people who were much less fortunate than I was, and as such, I was, in part, responsible for helping them out.
The not-as-way-back background: When I was a freshman in college, I joined a group called YACHT--Youth Against Complacency and Homelessness Today (yeah, we got a kick out of the name). We did a lot of things, but we were most known for our Saturday morning trips to Philly to hang out with homeless people. At the beginning of each semester, we'd harangue 80 or so of our fellow college students into giving up one meal a week; in return, our school's food service gave us lunch food for that many people.
Every Saturday morning, we'd gather and make lunches, then go down to the city, split off in twos or threes, and find homeless people to give lunches to. The idea was that if the person (or people) was willing, you'd sit down and hang out, have a conversation, shoot the breeze, whatever. If you'd been doing this a while, you most likely would know a few people and go hang out with them every week.
It was a delicate balance: some people didn't want to talk, and you'd give them a lunch and leave. You respected boundaries. Some people didn't respect your boundaries (I can't even count how many times I got hit on). And as I went to an evangelical Christian college, we always laid down the rules for our new members: no religious tracts, no attempts to convert. If someone wants to talk to you about your faith, go for it. But most people on the streets have heard "the gospel" many times and with too many strings attached. Our goal was not to (as St Francis's prayer puts it) "seek to...be understood but to understand." It was to listen, not to talk.
I got to know a lot of people on the streets. My go-to guy during my last couple of years was a man named Pop, who usually hung out (for those of you who know Philly) underneath the spiral stairs leading down to Suburban Station. We'd sit around and talk about everything and nothing--baseball, the weather, politics, the fact that the pigeons liked to sit on the statue and poop on unsuspecting travellers' heads. I'd often take him down to the Dunkin' Donuts in the station, where I'd get coffee and he'd get tea or Mountain Dew, depending on the season. I introduced him to my parents when they came to visit, and when I graduated, I made sure that the underclassmen knew who he was. I still see him once in a while when I'm going through Suburban Station.
The only-a-few-years-ago background: After I graduated, I joined the Capuchin Franciscan Volunteer Corps for a year and worked at N Street Village in DC, which is a social services organization for homeless and low-income women. It was a good year (and I'll wax rhapsodic about hanging out with friars at some other time). It was a hard year. I worked in the day center part of NSV. Most of the time, we got the same women in day after day--a lot of them lived there, and N Street's probably the best shelter/day center/program in the city for women. Many of them were in recovery and went to several AA/NA meetings a day--the women in the recovery program were required to go to an early morning meeting every day. I met some lovely women, and I met some very screwed-up women. It was difficult for me to go from "hanging out" to working at a place where there were established boundaries and rules I had to enforce, and most of the time, my thinking about privilege and race got in the way of my job (as in, "crap, I'm a 23-year-old white girl who's telling black women twice my age what to do"). But I formed solid friendships with some of the women, and I learned a lot that year.
So there's my story, and it's why I'm so, so angry about this shithead in Arizona. Because he's taking advantage of people who are on "the raggedy edge," people who may not have another place to go. Because those people he's taking advantage of could be the people I know. Because he's making a spectacle out of other human beings.
You don't treat other people as a means to an end. You don't treat people like things. Why is this so f*cking hard to understand?
That's just disgusting (what's happening in Arizona.)
ReplyDeleteIf only this was as simple as it sounds. First of all, politics is about unifying and dividing people to achieve greater goals, and is always a manipulation of people's history and emotions to achieve a goal...this is true for democrats and republicans, rich and poor. Whenever we sign up for a cause, we become a means to an end.
ReplyDeleteSecond, if democrats are taking issue with the strategy, it's their responsibility to explain how these "sham candidates" are hurting the homeless. It's not very democratic to tell someone they shouldn't run for office just because they have a chance, but if democrats want to play that game, it's their prerogative.
Third, at the very least, these homeless people are now active in the political system. Sure, they take away from the democratic vote, and that sucks for democrats. But I'm happier that they're mobilizing, and being encouraged to see themselves as contributing members of society.
josh: "Whenever we sign up for a cause, we become a means to an end."
ReplyDelete(I wish I had stronger HTML-fu with which to indicate quotes.) This is broadly true, but there's always a difference between volunteering to do something yourself and getting someone else to do it. I mean, let's start by abandoning the idea of reasonable discourse as a means to solving problems and pretend that 'saturate the ticket with pseudo-candidates' is an acceptable strategy. Even if you're going to do that, is there any reason to specifically recruit homeless people instead of, say, giving some support to actual Green Party people, or (since we already ditched morality) having Republican volunteers run independently on supposedly-green platforms?
The only reason for recruiting homeless people is the conviction that they will do what they're told lest you kick them back out of whatever support you're offering them to play decoy. This is basically the same as, say, the deplorable conditions for migrant workers outside Shanghai - sure, they hate you, but they know they have to do everything you say or they'll get dropped and someone else will be happy to take their spot.
josh: "But I'm happier that they're mobilizing, and being encouraged to see themselves as contributing members of society."
At the moment, they're being encouraged to see themselves as sock puppets and tools for Real People to use as a roundabout attack at their opponents. Imagine for a moment what would happen if Pearcy actually won. How much support do you figure he'll get from the RNC in establishing himself and developing the expertise to do the job right and find the contacts and personnel he needs?
Telling someone they're a legitimate candidate when you know they're woefully unprepared - and you don't care, because they're just a warm body with which to foil your opponent - is not an act of charity, and reinforces the notion (among anyone who isn't horrified by this) that homeless people are the playthings of society. So yeah: the 'hurting the homeless' box can be safely checked, thankyaverramuch.
Belatedly, it occurs to me that 'RNC' is almost definitely the wrong acronym to use there. I'm Canadian; I forget how your system is structured sometimes.
ReplyDeleteAlso, homeless people in many places do their own organizing for *themselves.* They advocate for their own rights; they create businesses for themselves. Look up "Street Sense" in DC, for example, or if you'd like an international example, "The Big Issue" in the UK.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, these people who are homeless are not mobilizing for themselves--they're doing it as tools of others. And those others, the Republicans, have done lots of things in the past to *hurt* the homeless. It's patronizing and demeaning, I think, to say "Oh, at least they're involved" when what they're involved in will probably turn around and bite them in the ass.
Many people who are homeless are already "contributing members of society." We just don't see it most of the time, because we don't want to see it.
@Will: "RNC" in a USian context would be the Republican National Committee. A lot of the media uses "GOP" when they refer to the Republicans--stands for Grand Old Party.
I wondered for a long time what GOP stood for, and boggled when someone finally explained it. I mean, especially from the 'modern Republicans would cause Lincoln to hit 45 rpm in his grave' perspective, they're not old - the oldest thing about them is their archaic use of 'grand' as a self-descriptor. It makes me want to mimic Mike Myers' old Jewish woman character from SNL: "Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. The GOP is neither Grand nor Old nor a Party: discuss."
ReplyDelete(I realise the Democrats can be frustrating at times as well, but in the words of the great Canadian Rick Mercer, "It is vitally important to choose the lesser of two evils. If you don't do that, you are PRO-EVIL.")
I thought it stood for God's Only Party nowadays?
ReplyDelete@CU5012: God ain't got no party. He's independent. Actually, I think he's probably a Browncoat. :)
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I'm not saying this is helping the homeless. It's quite likely hurting them. And that's bad. But it's just not quite that cut and dry.
ReplyDeleteWill: "there's always a difference between volunteering to do something yourself and getting someone else to do it"
I have my doubts. Politics is not about the direct action of one, its about numbers. There is no "doing something yourself" in politics. Plus, since when do we (the public) know what we're signing up for? In the US, Healthy eating advocates look to the USDA food pyramid for a balanced diet....what they're really advocating is support for whichever industries lobbied the most to keep their foods high on the list of what's "important." People who want "universal health care" (I'm one of them) have absolutely no idea what they're actually asking for. I'm sure Canada has an equally tangled political system. In this situation, the homeless are advocating unknowingly for Republicans. And its awful to use the little guy. But really, it's not fair to say that those of us who are well-fed and sheltered, well-educated, employed, and otherwise privileged actually have an accurate understanding of our political causes.
Will: "Telling someone they're a legitimate candidate when you know they're woefully unprepared - and you don't care, because they're just a warm body with which to foil your opponent - is not an act of charity"
You're absolutely right here. It's a political strategy, not charity. Politics aren't evil. What's evil is how clearly these people are being used. The problem for Democrats is that the homeless people who are running see something important in their cause...they believe in themselves. They stand for something. And it's not fair to say that just because they got there due to an Evil Republican Plot, that it's not an ok place to be.
Sarah: "Also, homeless people in many places do their own organizing for *themselves.*"
You're right, of course. Any under-served group can organize for themselves. This doesn't mean that outside efforts are wrong...in fact it's usually critical for success. Calling this an "outside effort to organize" is a very big stretch, I understand, because they may be unwittingly organizing against their own good at the behest of some guy who doesn't have their best interests at heart. I believe that our job as concerned citizens is to support their efforts to act in ways that will help them. I'm not sure that supporting the Democratic vote will necessarily do that any more than the Republican vote.
Will: "I realise the Democrats can be frustrating at times as well, but....'it is vitally important to choose the lesser of two evils.'"
In this case, Republicans say that they're homeless but not idiots, and they can think for themselves and organize as they wish. Democrats agree that they're not idiots, but say that the homeless are disadvantaged and therefore less prepared to advocate for themselves. That they need our help. We have a choice between Republican neglect and Democratic pity. Both are masked by decent arguments and the best intentions. There's no lesser of evils here, both are equally harmful.
Some Democrats and some Republicans do wonderful things for the homeless. Sarah gave several examples of great things that aren't pity or neglect. But the party line is not just about these wonderful programs, it's about overarching policy, and that's where both parties massively fail.
josh: “I have my doubts. Politics is not about the direct action of one, its about numbers. There is no "doing something yourself" in politics.
ReplyDelete…
But really, it's not fair to say that those of us who are well-fed and sheltered, well-educated, employed, and otherwise privileged actually have an accurate understanding of our political causes.”
It’s not a matter of understanding, it’s a matter of responsibility. As I noted, if Pearcy wins, I am 90% certain that the Republicans who got him there will instantly ditch him to swim for himself (with a 10% option on trying to force him to further their goals in exchange for continued support, regardless of the platform he ran on). To them, Pearcy is a fall guy, and they made someone else be the fall guy instead of volunteering one of their own number to do it – and that is a role that is not hard to understand *or* take responsibility for.
josh: “The problem for Democrats is that the homeless people who are running see something important in their cause...they believe in themselves. They stand for something. And it's not fair to say that just because they got there due to an Evil Republican Plot, that it's not an ok place to be.”
I’m not sure why you keep casting this as Republican vs Democrat (as noted, I’m Canadian, and consider both parties to be to the Right of my position). Nor am I stating that there’s something wrong with homeless people running for office. I have general concerns whenever someone runs for an office that I doubt they’re qualified for, but as GW Bush proved, even the president can be completely unqualified and the USA is too robust to be brought down.
josh: “There's no lesser of evils here, both are equally harmful.”
Really? I mean, really. We have one side that advocates for social support but occasionally turns patronising, and one side that’s decided to use them as human shields because it’s not legal to deport them to Mexico, and you’re going to argue that they’re equally bad? Apparently you think that condescension is REALLY agonisingly painful.
So... I posted a reply, and it appeared to go up, and now that I've refreshed the page, it's gone. I shall give the blog some time to mull its options over before reposting.
ReplyDeleteOkay. My Post: The Next Generation.
ReplyDeletejosh: “I have my doubts. Politics is not about the direct action of one, its about numbers. There is no "doing something yourself" in politics.
…
But really, it's not fair to say that those of us who are well-fed and sheltered, well-educated, employed, and otherwise privileged actually have an accurate understanding of our political causes.”
It’s not a matter of understanding, it’s a matter of responsibility. As I noted, if Pearcy wins, I am 90% certain that the Republicans who got him there will instantly ditch him to swim for himself (with a 10% option on trying to force him to further their goals in exchange for continued support, regardless of the platform he ran on). To them, Pearcy is a fall guy, and they made someone else be the fall guy instead of volunteering one of their own number to do it – and that is a role that is not hard to understand *or* take responsibility for.
josh: “The problem for Democrats is that the homeless people who are running see something important in their cause...they believe in themselves. They stand for something. And it's not fair to say that just because they got there due to an Evil Republican Plot, that it's not an ok place to be.”
I’m not sure why you keep casting this as Republican vs Democrat (as noted, I’m Canadian, and consider both parties to be to the Right of my position). Nor am I stating that there’s something wrong with homeless people running for office. I have general concerns whenever someone runs for an office that I doubt they’re qualified for, but as GW Bush proved, even the president can be completely unqualified and the USA is too robust to be brought down.
josh: “There's no lesser of evils here, both are equally harmful.”
Really? I mean, really. We have one side that advocates for social support but occasionally turns patronising, and one side that’s decided to use them as human shields because it’s not legal to deport them to Mexico, and you’re going to argue that they’re equally bad? Apparently you think that condescension is REALLY agonisingly painful.
And now the second attempt has suffered exactly the same fate, so either it's getting moderated or I've learned how to type in disappearing digital ink.
ReplyDelete@Will: Your reply got forwarded to my email, so I don't know why it didn't get posted. I'll put it up for you...
ReplyDeleteWill's post:
ReplyDeletejosh: “I have my doubts. Politics is not about the direct action of one, its about numbers. There is no "doing something yourself" in politics.
…
But really, it's not fair to say that those of us who are well-fed and sheltered, well-educated, employed, and otherwise privileged actually have an accurate understanding of our political causes.”
It’s not a matter of understanding, it’s a matter of responsibility. As I noted, if Pearcy wins, I am 90% certain that the Republicans who got him there will instantly ditch him to swim for himself (with a 10% option on trying to force him to further their goals in exchange for continued support, regardless of the platform he ran on). To them, Pearcy is a fall guy, and they made someone else be the fall guy instead of volunteering one of their own number to do it – and that is a role that is not hard to understand *or* take responsibility for.
josh: “The problem for Democrats is that the homeless people who are running see something important in their cause...they believe in themselves. They stand for something. And it's not fair to say that just because they got there due to an Evil Republican Plot, that it's not an ok place to be.”
I’m not sure why you keep casting this as Republican vs Democrat (as noted, I’m Canadian, and consider both parties to be to the Right of my position). Nor am I stating that there’s something wrong with homeless people running for office. I have general concerns whenever someone runs for an office that I doubt they’re qualified for, but as GW Bush proved, even the president can be completely unqualified and the USA is too robust to be brought down.
josh: “There's no lesser of evils here, both are equally harmful.”
Really? I mean, really. We have one side that advocates for social support but occasionally turns patronising, and one side that’s decided to use them as human shields because it’s not legal to deport them to Mexico, and you’re going to argue that they’re equally bad? Apparently you think that condescension is REALLY agonisingly painful.
Will: I think it's a glitch...your comment came through to my email but didn't post on the site. I'll paste it below and respond.
ReplyDelete--The Comment
"josh: “I have my doubts. Politics is not about the direct action of one, its about numbers. There is no "doing something yourself" in politics.
…
But really, it's not fair to say that those of us who are well-fed and sheltered, well-educated, employed, and otherwise privileged actually have an accurate understanding of our political causes.”
It’s not a matter of understanding, it’s a matter of responsibility. As I noted, if Pearcy wins, I am 90% certain that the Republicans who got him there will instantly ditch him to swim for himself (with a 10% option on trying to force him to further their goals in exchange for continued support, regardless of the platform he ran on). To them, Pearcy is a fall guy, and they made someone else be the fall guy instead of volunteering one of their own number to do it – and that is a role that is not hard to understand *or* take responsibility for.
josh: “The problem for Democrats is that the homeless people who are running see something important in their cause...they believe in themselves. They stand for something. And it's not fair to say that just because they got there due to an Evil Republican Plot, that it's not an ok place to be.”
I’m not sure why you keep casting this as Republican vs Democrat (as noted, I’m Canadian, and consider both parties to be to the Right of my position). Nor am I stating that there’s something wrong with homeless people running for office. I have general concerns whenever someone runs for an office that I doubt they’re qualified for, but as GW Bush proved, even the president can be completely unqualified and the USA is too robust to be brought down.
josh: “There's no lesser of evils here, both are equally harmful.”
Really? I mean, really. We have one side that advocates for social support but occasionally turns patronising, and one side that’s decided to use them as human shields because it’s not legal to deport them to Mexico, and you’re going to argue that they’re equally bad? Apparently you think that condescension is REALLY agonisingly painful. "
--Response
Will: "if Pearcy wins, I am 90% certain that the Republicans who got him there will instantly ditch him to swim for himself"
If Pearcy wins, a) it likely won't be the Republicans who voted for him. It will mostly be Democrats, and they'd do it because they supported him. b) if someone wins an election, they have the political savvy to make the contacts they need. You can't win an election just by being a puppet of a competing party.
Will: "I’m not sure why you keep casting this as Republican vs Democrat"
Only because that's the way the debate was set up. Republican trying to take away Democrat votes.
Will: "as GW Bush proved, even the president can be completely unqualified and the USA is too robust to be brought down."
I agree that Bush had many frightening ideas. That's very different than being an unqualified leader. This was kind of a cheap shot.
Will: "Apparently you think that condescension is REALLY agonisingly painful"
Condescension on a personal level is merely annoying. However, making condescension a system wide policy is very harmful. You create people dependent on the system for help, while simultaneously discouraging them from thinking they can change anything. Basically, you create a codependent relationship...the homeless need us for money/food/etc., and we need them to prove that we're helping people and feel warm and fuzzy. I believe strongly in social support, but think that support could come in a different form.
Oh, Blogspot. You are so difficult.
ReplyDeleteOy vey. Josh, it looks like your post didn't come through, either, but it showed up in my email. So I'll post it for you:
ReplyDeleteWill: "if Pearcy wins, I am 90% certain that the Republicans who got him there will instantly ditch him to swim for himself"
If Pearcy wins, a) it likely won't be the Republicans who voted for him. It will mostly be Democrats, and they'd do it because they supported him. b) if someone wins an election, they have the political savvy to make the contacts they need. You can't win an election just by being a puppet of a competing party.
Will: "I’m not sure why you keep casting this as Republican vs Democrat"
Only because that's the way the debate was set up. Republican trying to take away Democrat votes.
Will: "as GW Bush proved, even the president can be completely unqualified and the USA is too robust to be brought down."
I agree that Bush had many frightening ideas. That's very different than being an unqualified leader. This was kind of a cheap shot.
Will: "Apparently you think that condescension is REALLY agonisingly painful"
Condescension on a personal level is merely annoying. However, making condescension a system wide policy is very harmful. You create people dependent on the system for help, while simultaneously discouraging them from thinking they can change anything. Basically, you create a codependent relationship...the homeless need us for money/food/etc., and we need them to prove that we're helping people and feel warm and fuzzy. I believe strongly in social support, but think that support could come in a different form.
Thank you both. Two attempts, two proxy-posts, the circle is closed. (Although I can see josh's latest post as well as sarah's repost, so now I feel like everything needs to be doubled for completeness.)
ReplyDeletejosh: "If Pearcy wins, a) it likely won't be the Republicans who voted for him. It will mostly be Democrats, and they'd do it because they supported him. b) if someone wins an election, they have the political savvy to make the contacts they need. You can't win an election just by being a puppet of a competing party."
Granted, and I'm quite sure he's got little to no chance of actually winning even if he proves brilliant, but that doesn't make it less disingenuous on the Republicans' part. I'm starting to get a clearer idea of your position, I think - you're arguing that the Republicans in this case may be doing a net-good thing for net-bad reasons. (Which makes me think of Eve Forward's "Villains By Necessity", which will leave me grinning for the rest of the day.) But it's only a net-good so long as the end result is better for homeless people than not, and given that its most likely effect is to support Republican candidates with no interest in or respect for homeless people, I'm not seeing it.
"I agree that Bush had many frightening ideas. That's very different than being an unqualified leader. This was kind of a cheap shot."
The two are not mutually exclusive. And while I think GWB has thoroughly earned every cheap shot, I grant that it was a non sequitur to the issue at hand. Apologies.
"You create people dependent on the system for help, while simultaneously discouraging them from thinking they can change anything. Basically, you create a codependent relationship...the homeless need us for money/food/etc.," --
Out of curiosity, do we have anything beyond anecdotes to back this up? It's an assertion that comes around pretty frequently, but it strikes me as the kind of 'common knowledge' that people don't investigate enough.
-- "and we need them to prove that we're helping people and feel warm and fuzzy. I believe strongly in social support, but think that support could come in a different form."
Quite agreed that the desire to feel good about charity is a problem, since that really has been used as a justification for not helping *more*. I don't think the Democratic supports for homeless or other disadvantaged populations are perfect either, but since their opposition's programs are usually 'Suck it up and buy some bootstraps', I think the lesser of two evils is pretty easy to identify.
Will: “But it's only a net-good so long as the end result is better for homeless people than not, and given that its most likely effect is to support Republican candidates with no interest in or respect for homeless people, I'm not seeing it.”
ReplyDeleteAgreed, to a point. I tend to lean towards the view that this might be a short-term setback (the democrats will do more for the homeless than republicans) but a long-term victory (the sense of empowerment, and an understanding of how they can leverage their political weight, rather than being used by either party or society in general). I could definitely see strong contrary arguments about whether this will really help them long-term. But you are right in saying that I think they are doing a “net-good thing for net-bad reasons.”
Will: “Out of curiosity, do we have anything beyond anecdotes to back this up?”
This embarrassed me a little, because you’re totally right that I spoke without substantiating evidence. Thanks for pointing it out. In repentance, I did a bit of research (not a lot, but I’ll be sure to let you know if I find more). It’s definitely known that this type of relationship forms in one-on-one relationships. There’s also a whole area of social science devoted to “dependency theory,” which talks about a similar phenomenon in regard to international relations. I didn’t find anything that refutes my claim, though nothing that explicitly supports this relationship forming in populations within a country. I am currently running on the idea that if it applies to both smaller (individual) and larger (international) relationships, it’s likely to apply to populations. But I may be wrong.
Will: “I don't think the Democratic supports for homeless or other disadvantaged populations are perfect either, but since their opposition's programs are usually 'Suck it up and buy some bootstraps', I think the lesser of two evils is pretty easy to identify”
One program comes to mind as an example of a policy that bridged the gap between these extremes a bit...Welfare to Work (which was controversial and only moderately successful, but is now gone). Clearly, it wasn’t the best implementation, but I find the idea (providing incentives for people to help themselves) to be much more palatable than either giving away free money or telling them to suck it up. I don’t think we can really help people who are content to simply collect their welfare or disability check each month and call it a day unless we provide a reason for them to do more. If most democratic programs fell under this category, I would be all for them, it just doesn't seem to be the case.
josh: "I am currently running on the idea that if it applies to both smaller (individual) and larger (international) relationships, it’s likely to apply to populations. But I may be wrong."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it does apply to a degree, I don't mean to contest that. But people seem to bring it up as if it's a given that if we run welfare programs, the vast majority of poor people will just sit there at the raggedy edge (gorram it, sarah, now I've got Mal Reynolds in my head) and live contentedly in subsistence. Obviously you don't support that kind of absolute view, but these things can be hard to excise from our heads. Kudos on the research; I'll be interested to know what you find.
Related, and also touching on the welfare-to-work thing, the company I'm in recently did a project related to unemployment assistance, and one thing that just about everyone (focus groups of unemployed people) wanted to see was wage subsidy - the government temporarily pays part of your salary. It means you're working (so society benefits and your income goes up), it means the government doesn't have to pay you as much as your unemployment cheque would be, and it means your employer gets a new hire at a discount (making them a lot more interested in hiring you at all).
My first thought on hearing that was "Why haven't we been doing this FOREVER?" Humanity continues to be slow on the uptake.
Jumping in for a second again (and then I really do have to do some work):
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems with the manifestations of welfare-to-work that I've seen in the States is that it doesn't allow people the time to get back on their feet--once they get a job, they're cut off from their welfare benefits, and they don't have the savings or the support system that they need. It sounds, Will, that the program your company is working with is much better.
In general, homelessness and poverty are complicated. You can't blame them on just one thing. A lot of it is structural: you're born disadvantaged, you don't get a good education because the school district is bad, you can't get a good job because your education's poor, so on and so forth.
Obviously, there are people who are in bad situations because they've made bad choices, but hell: I've made bad choices, and I know if I fall down, I can go crawling home and crash on my parents' couch. Many, many people don't have that luxury. (And yeah, I'm also white. Privilege all the way down.)
As for the Democrats and the Republicans? On my most cynical days, I say screw all of 'em, because there are few who care about the people on the edge. If this scheme by this Republican gives people a sense of empowerment, great. Some good will come out of it. But I think it was a) wrong, 2) deceitful and 3) inhumane.
And while I'm not big on making absolute statements, I'm going to say this: I still think he's treating people like objects. I think treating people like objects is inherently a Bad Thing, and I think treating people who are less powerful than you like objects is despicable.
Will: Having Mal Reynolds in your head is a hell of a lot better than having, say, Jayne Cobb in your head. Just sayin'.
sarah: "It sounds, Will, that the program your company is working with is much better."
ReplyDeleteWell, we're consultants, so we're not actually involved in the program, but I did get to write a report advocating the hell out of it. No idea if it'll really get put to use. When I first started there, my boss said the hardest part fo the job was seeing our recommendations "fall like so many wounded sparrows".
"I still think he's treating people like objects. I think treating people like objects is inherently a Bad Thing"
Oh, you're going to like Granny Weatherwax. (Discworld again. She dispenses with moral arguments with the assertion that "evil starts with treating people as things.")
Most days, it's Simon Tam in my head ("...That thought *wearies* me...") but I'm probably safe as long as it's not River.
So I'm ripping off Terry Pratchett? I can live with that.
ReplyDeleteI really love that scene (in "Trash," I think?) between Jayne and Simon, because it shows Simon's strength and loyalty and, to top it all, dry wit. Plus River's "Also? I can kill you with my brain."
Because the intranet at work is electrogibbled (I think that's an engineering term) I have excess free time with which to point out, for completeness' sake, that there *is* actually more than the one reason I mentioned earlier for Republicans to entice homeless people into these roles, rather than having volunteers do it. It's not just about making them do what they want - as josh pointed out, if any of the candidates does prove brilliant and become a potential winner, they'll start to get their own support and their need for Republican backing will fall.
ReplyDeleteThe other aspect is that it can *look* like such a nice thing to do that anyone who complains can be cast as a total jerk who's trying to oppress the homeless. Even those who realise that it's a gross tactic on the Republicans' part may feel that the outcome is still worthwhile - again, as you have illustrated, josh.
So it's not so much pure evil as it is a layer cake of Evil that is protected by a shell of Conniving Icing. If nothing else, I must admit that it's a deep and artful way of being completely abhorrent.
I wonder if there's ever been a candidate who's tried the radical idea of actually hiring homeless people to work in their campaign? It may not be a lucrative job, but it seems like a place to start if you want to take those issues on. (I've never much wanted to be a politician, but sometimes the desire to try doing that job *differently* is overwhelming.)
sarah said...
ReplyDeleteWill: Having Mal Reynolds in your head is a hell of a lot better than having, say, Glenn Beck in your head. Just sayin'.
There, fixed that for ya!
@reynard: That, too. (I've never seen Glenn Beck's show, and I have no desire to ever see it.)
ReplyDelete@Will: When I was working in DC, some of the women I worked with were involved in political campaigns. Not sure if they were paid or volunteers, though.
I'm tired, tired, tired of people picking on the homeless and the poor. It hurts my heart and my head, and it makes me want to give up on the world. And you know? Don't we have some sort of general ethical code that says, don't kick a person while (s)he's down? Can't we apply that to a group at large?
At some point, someone apparently decided a better code was "If someone is down, they deserve it, so kick them to make sure they don't get back up and take your stuff." It is exhausting.
ReplyDeleteWho was heading up Urban Development in our Celestial Bureaucracy? Mohammad Yunus? He's going to need backup. I nominate Jesus of Nazareth. (Son of God or not, he is definitely a historical figure.)