More on the Topic of Solving Poverty

Gene Fant opened this conversation up, so I’ll dive in.

I think it is interesting that anyone, such as the person Dr. Fant refers to, could think that the federal government can effectively solve the problem of poverty.  I don’t think it can because it resolutely refuses to confront the sources.

Really, truly, don’t we know the cause of a great deal of the poverty in our midst?  Here’s a hint:  Adam Smith thought the poor who gravitated to the fiery preachers were wise.  Why?  Because the hell and brimstoners alone preached the doctrines that might prevent the poor from the catastrophic consequences of things like losing their jobs and money on liquor and gambling.

I can recall having lunch with Micah Watson, a colleague who teaches at Union with Dr. Fant, and he was talking about the trouble Jackson, TN has with some of its public schools.  He said something that stuck.  He said, “Many families in our school district lack the cultural capital to succeed.”

And he is right.  Anyone who looks at the research in a dispassionate way will discover that people who do just a few things will almost never live in poverty.  Those few things are that they will graduate from high school, get married, and delay childbearing until after marriage.  If you do that, you will probably not spend your life below the poverty line.

Going a little further you will also find that children who come from intact, two parent families are significantly more likely to do better in school, to have fewer behavioral problems, to commit fewer crimes, to stay out of jail, to avoid sexual and physical abuse, and to stay off of public assistance than are their peers from broken homes or from single parent homes.  These things are true even if you control for race.

For some reason, and I would argue that it is partially because of our silly secular mindset that favors avoiding moralism, we are unwilling to embody some of this knowledge in our public policy.  When President Bush suggested that maybe we just might consider trying to encourage marriage among the poor, protest erupted.  It was the same old thing, theocracy, blah, blah, blah . . .  For some reason the morality that extends welfare to poor people is perfectly fine while the morality that would gently urge them toward the things that help human beings flourish is threatening and terrible and ultra-religious.

Does the church do enough?  It does not, but I would argue that in part we fail to combat the problem of poverty adequately in the church because we think the duty has been subcontracted out to the state.  The larger the state becomes, the less air is left in the community space for everyone else, especially the church because we buy into the idea of a secular state.  (This is a point I talk about, by the way, in The End of Secularism.)  The state eats up both resources and social influence.  The system does not realize it has a soul, or if it does it is busy trying to kill it.

(Now, the question of exactly how we are spending our resources in the church is another post.)