by Selwyn Duke
Every cloud has a silver lining, and that has been true in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy as Americans have rallied together around a common cause, and presently feel a sense of patriotism that has been absent for decades. Many Americans have responded admirably, as evidenced by the unprecedented charitable giving: people have donated more than one billion dollars for the purposes of aiding those directly affected by the attack. Because of this, the victims' families are receiving and will continue to receive financial aid from the various organizations that are facilitating this endeavor. So much has been given and so much will be administered, that it could almost be said that never before have so many done so much for so few. But it's the way things should be done, because this is true charity; it is money that was given voluntarily, out of the goodness of people's hearts, and it's being administered by the private sector. This is what was meant when George Bush Senior spoke of "a thousand points of light"; this is neighbor helping neighbor - it is noble and I am truly happy to see it.
Unfortunately though, a while back something else occurred that was not so noble, and it distresses me very much. We were told that some of the stricken families weren't satisfied with what they were being given and were asking for more, and that the federal government actually decided to give them a handout at the courtesy of the taxpayer. And now we hear that the six families that lost loved ones in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing want a piece of the action as well. Of course, this isn't surprising; after all, the precedent has been set, so why shouldn't they? Now, I'm sure that some people will think me callous for broaching this subject, because it's easy to get caught up in the surrounding emotionalism and fail to see the forest from the trees.
Compassion? Can fairness be divorced from compassion without rendering it something less than compassion? Americans suffer tragedy all the time; none of us can escape it - we'll all lose loved ones. In fact, every year tens of thousands of people have loved ones snatched from them in an untimely fashion; it could be because of car accidents [40,000 people lose their lives on the road every year], or murder, or it could be due to some other untimely fate. Now, if we're going to be fair, we have to compensate some of these people via Uncle Sam as well. Think about it: what is the principle that justifies the giving of tax dollars to the WTC families? If it's that they lost breadwinners, rendering them far less able to support themselves, then we should offer the same government aid to ALL of the tens of thousands of families that find themselves in the same predicament every year. Of course, they lost loved ones due to the commission of a violent act, so the rationale could be that it's the government's responsibility to prevent such things, and because it failed in that task it must make amends. But, if that's the case, then once again the government should be consistent and offer the same benefits to the families of the 15,000 people who are murdered every year. After all, if it's part of the legitimate role of government to compensate people on a certain basis, then it should be applied to EVERYONE whose situation provides that basis. If it's not the proper domain of government however, then NO ONE should receive such compensation. To do otherwise would be wrong; it would be unjust discrimination - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
In reality though, we all know what most of the aforementioned people will receive from the government: bupkiss - nada. These are people who will never make it onto the radar screen, and will seldom stray into the consciousness of most Americans - their loved ones didn't die in a high profile event, you see. But, would we look them in the eye and tell them that they are less deserving of aid because their loved ones were taken from them in a more common manner? Would we say that their pain is less real? Of course not. Yet, no one will propose applying the same standard to them and giving them federal money for pain and suffering; this isn't fair and it's not compassion. These people will receive whatever their insurance policies dictate, and whatever other help, material and spiritual the other points of light give them, and most of them will count themselves blessed if those lights shine 1/10th as brightly on them as they have on the 9/11 families.
Charity? Sadly, what we're witnessing here is the spirit of entitlement that has been instilled in many Americans during the last few decades rearing it's ugly head again. Many Americans have become so spoiled that they mistake luxuries for necessities and gifts for birthrights. Consequently, they have lost sight of the nature and purpose of charity. I watched an interview with a woman whose husband died on 9/11; she lamented that she had received only $20,000 from the private charities and stated that it could only cover her expenses for three months. Now, let's do the math: this works out to $80,000 a year, and the implication was that she had a right to such a handout because it was what she "needed". Well, it's time to put things in perspective, and the first thing that has to be realized is that most Americans don't spend $80,000 a year on routine expenses, and for a very good reason. It's because they can't.They can't because they don't earn anywhere close to that amount in the first place - the median American income is only $42,100. Ironically, many of these average Americans donated most of the money that is being given to these people who could buy and sell them, and now their tax money will be funneled in the same direction. Lest you think that the woman in question is a rarity, you should bear in mind that many of these families are quite wealthy. The WTC was one of the hubs of the financial world - the people who worked there weren't flipping hamburgers. So now, let's remind ourselves of what the true purpose of charity is. Charity isn't there to keep people in silk and satin; its purpose is to provide necessities for people who lack them. What this means is, that if through no fault of your own you can't put food on the table and obtain adequate shelter, your fellow man should rally to your side and help you of his own accord. It also means something else though: if your life circumstances change and you can no longer finance your $500,000 house and $50,000 car, guess what? You've got to sell those luxuries and live a more modest lifestyle - one more in keeping with the average American's. Welcome to real life - these are realities that people around the world have to deal with on a constant basis. Furthermore, charity should be apportioned in accordance with the material requirements of the people in question: the rich should get nothing and the poor the most; it's there to satisfy needs - not wants. Because of this, the contention made by some that the families should all be given equal amounts of privately raised money should never have been entertained in the first place, because on the face of it it's ridiculous. But more ridiculous still is the notion that such people should be given the taxpayers' money.
My resistance to government aid isn't about denying the aggrieved compassion - no, not at all. Not any more than the giving of money to them is about healing their broken hearts - no amount of money could even begin to assuage such loss. Once again, the purpose of material aid is only to satisfy a person's material needs: housing, food, medicine, etc.; beyond that, the aid that they need can only be given by the grace of God, and that can't be administered via a government program. Of course, if people want to use the vehicle of private charities to fund the lifestyles of the rich and anonymous, they have every right to do so. People can give as much as they want to whomever they want; that's what freedom is all about - it's their money. But, when it's other people's money it's a different story, and that's why a government handout is wrong. It's just another example of pandering politicians' willingness to give people the shirt off someone else's back in order to make themselves seem compassionate. The Americans who donated gave abundantly and gracefully, and their beneficiaries should receive what they're given gracefully. Charity is charity; a government handout is a perversion of it. The latter is not what the elder Bush meant by a thousand points of light - George W. Bush, are you listening?
.
