A Response to the Former Lieutenant Governor

Former Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell recently had a piece in the Deseret News, in which he warned against the contentious spirit of the present political discourse.

"One of the most dangerous, cancerous influences in our country today is the increasing contention and mean-spirited vitriol in our political discourse... Sadly, far too many of us have closed our minds to challenging views from across the ideological divide or even from neutral territory."

I value this warning. In that spirit, I would like to offer a perspective on something else Mr. Bell mentions in the same article. This viewpoint comes from, if not fully the across the ideological divide, then at least from a different place along its length. 

Earlier in the piece, Mr. Bell laments the ongoing problem of poverty. He has spent much time, thought, and effort on the issue, and finds its solution to be elusive. I believe he sincerely wants to comprehend its many nuances and to see it end. 

It may be that this apparent need to define and categorize each person or family and their reasons for being in poverty is his biggest obstacle. Says he:

"Many good people live in grinding, unforgiving poverty because of physical or mental limitations, lack of cultural and social capital, systemic bias and racism. Others are lazy and even malingerers. The trick is how to find and work with the willing and to stop subsidizing those who will not improve themselves."

Mr. Bell's acknowledgement of systemic problems, especially racism, reinforces his credibility on this issue. So many conservatives look for ways to deny the existence of such things. However, his next sentence reveals his own bias. Here is what that sentence might look like if the silent implication at the end of it were put into words. 

"Others are lazy and even malingerers..." and therefore undeserving of society's ongoing aid in matters of basic survival.

With respect to Mr. Bell, this is the fundamental perspective shift he needs if he hopes to solve the problem of poverty. He needs to shake the attitude I have heard aptly described as the "fear of someone somewhere getting away with something" and replace it with faith in humanity and commitment to grace.

The “trick” is not how to "work with the willing and stop subsidizing" those judged "lazy" or otherwise unworthy of aid, it’s to stop judging them in the first place. To start with, the very concept of laziness is suspect from a psychological standpoint. Secondly, if, as Mr. Bell tells us, some people face a seemingly impenetrable wall of unjust obstacles to escaping poverty (and they do), is it any wonder they've developed the kinds of behaviors that would get them labeled "malingerers" by those who struggle to understand? Is it surprising that the level of assistance we currently give them isn't enough to overcome those barriers?

The real, much more difficult trick is how to get lawmakers, state workers, and citizens in general to see the basic human value of all people despite their perceived flaws, and to institute programs that preserve lives based on that value alone. It’s to end the idea that a person must prove themselves worthy of continued existence.

Perhaps if we worked to remove the crushing uncertainty and stress of poverty from everyone, without pausing first to consider whether they deserve it, we would find not only our own hearts opened to understanding, but their hearts strengthened and pro-social behavior increased by the resulting bonds to a community that truly cares for them. Perhaps if we structured our society such that no one needed to wonder where to find their next meal, whether they would have a home for their family next month, or how to get help with medical needs, all of the energy we waste on those things could be put to better use solving other problems, or even simply enjoying life.

Will a system like this result in some people getting more than they strictly need to survive? Of course it will, but why are we afraid of that? Heaven forbid that even the poorest residents in the self-styled greatest nation on earth should do better than just barely scrape by. Will the few—statistically very few—who abuse the system critically undermine anything else, or are we so horrified by the idea that government programs might be leading the poor to an enriching life, instead of just a technically sustainable one, that we're willing to keep millions in unnecessary poverty just to prevent it? Further, is it hard to believe that some (perhaps most) of the abuse that does happen is based on fear and mistrust of our biased system, rather than on the cartoonish villainy embodied in the myth of the "welfare queen?" Is it hard to believe that under a just and generous system, abuse would diminish along with poverty?

Moreover, who is Mr. Bell, and who are we as a state, to set a bar of personal improvement below which a person is no longer entitled to the inalienable right to life? Nearly half of the states have moved away from such an attitude even towards violent criminals. Will Mr. Bell sit in a room with each individual "who will not improve themselves" and inform them that, in the judgement of the State of Utah, they are not worthy of food, clothing, and shelter? That they haven't passed their survival recommend interview? In America, and in Utah, is personal "improvement" defined in terms of earthly riches or economic contribution? Unfortunately, this is exactly the measure used in the minds of many who resist the kinds of reforms I'm calling for. In my view, this attitude is an affront to morality, to the supposed values of our state, and to the ideals enshrined in our most revered founding documents. 

In the unlikely event that Mr. Bell reads this, I'm certain it won't be the first time he encounters such ideas. Perhaps he agrees with me in principle, but thinks this approach impractical or even impossible in the current political environment. 

Of course, I realize that any program will need to have thresholds, limitations, and greater nuance than just "do you need something? Here, have as much as you need!" Resources are finite, and should be equitably distributed. But where poverty is concerned, I'm in favor of upper thresholds rather than lower ones. I'm in favor of removing judgment rather than refining it. I would rather have it said of our state that we gave too much to our citizens and residents than that we gave too little. 

In light of Mr. Bell's recent comments in the Deseret News indicating his ongoing efforts to end poverty, and considering his admonition to open our minds to challenging ideas from all sides, I encourage him and anyone else who reads this to consider what I'm saying anew, to add to the conversation, and to continue to work to create a better system than the one we have now.