BEST OF JIM COOK
November 9, 2005
LIBERALS NEVER LEARN
By James Cook
In Toronto, Canada six shootings in 24 hours made the
headlines. Former mayor, John Sewell, obviously a liberal, claimed that
much of the violence stems from "treating black kids in a way that has
made them give up generally on the traditional roots we have for success
in this society. It is very sad and the last thing you’d want to be at
this point, I think, is a black kid. We’ve got to rush in with big
programs quickly."
That’s the liberal mantra; if people misbehave, rush
in with programs that give them more money. But, big social programs
don’t work. They cause more problems than they cure. Management guru
Peter Drucker sums it up, "despite ever larger and constantly growing
expenditures, the ‘welfare mess’ in the United States is getting
steadily worse. In fact, a strong case can be made – and has been made –
that the poor in America…. have become the poorer, the more helpless,
the more disadvantaged, the more welfare money is being spent to help
them. American welfare spending encourages dependence. It paralyzes
rather than energizes."
Why is it that liberals never catch on to the error
of their ways? Why don’t they see the harm in giving people money they
didn’t earn? There’s a word for people who don’t learn from their
mistakes, and it’s not very flattering. It’s really not that hard to
figure out why people who are subsidized misbehave. They don’t have
anything to do. The operative word is boredom.
In 1966, Robert Ardrey wrote a controversial inquiry
into the nature of man entitled, "The Territorial Imperative". He linked
behavior with the ownership and defense of territory. (Birds sing to
defend their territory.) This contention, and its allusion to private
property, made Ardrey unpopular with the left. His wisdom never gained
mainstream attention.
He wrote that there are three principal needs of all
higher animals, including man: the need for identity, the need for
stimulation and the need for security. Beyond these three, he could find
no others. Ardrey wrote, "Identity, stimulation, security; if you will
think of them in terms of their opposites their images will be
sharpened. Identity is the opposite of anonymity. Stimulation is the
opposite of boredom. Security is the opposite of anxiety. We shun
anonymity, dread boredom, seek to dispel anxiety. We grasp at
identification, yearn for stimulation, conserve or gain security."
"There are few exceptions," he wrote, "to the rule
that the need for identity is the most powerful and most pervasive among
all species. The need for stimulation is not far behind. And security,
normally, will be sacrificed for either of the other two." Then,
ominously for the American welfare state he wrote, "The structure of
security is the birthplace of boredom," and "Our means of satisfying
innate needs are precious few, and sacrifice of any must mean
replacement by another."
Mankind’s requirement to feed, clothe and shelter
themselves fulfills many of these human needs that Ardrey wrote about.
Work relieves boredom, and even a humdrum job brings far more
stimulation than idleness. Success at a job brings status and identity
that relieves anonymity. And security is by definition the result of
work and labor.
Social welfare provides security, but deprives the
recipient of the stimulation and identity that come from work and
struggle. Writing in a biology book in the mid-60s, almost as though he
could foretell the failed future of "The Great Society," Robert Ardrey
stated, "We may agree, for example, that our societies must provide
greater security for the individual; yet if all we succeed in producing
is a social structure providing increased anonymity and ever increasing
boredom, then we should not wonder if ingenious man turns to such
amusements as drugs, housebreaking, vandalism, mayhem, riots, or – at
the most harmless – strange haircuts, costumes, standards of
cleanliness, and sexual experiments." Nowhere else has anyone written a
more apt description of the welfare predicament.
Work is part of the growth process of life. A job
forces people to maintain certain standards of good character, effort
and temperance. If you steal, lie or take drugs while at work, you lose
your job. Welfare does not weaken you as much as excuse you from the
normal pressures of employment and self sufficiency that make you
stronger, and improve your character.
The time is overdue for society to conclude that
human nature does not harmonize with income supports. The longer people
receive economic assistance, the worse their social condition.
Destructive behavior grows from one generation on income supports to the
next. Bad behavior and low character are common among the subsidized
underclass. The media plys us with stories aimed to arouse our social
sympathy for the poor. They overlook that in America today, "poor"
stands as much for poor character as it does for poverty.
Many of our poor deserve far less sympathy, and least
of all do they deserve a check. Theirs is not the same kind of poverty
that we see in Ethiopia or Bangladesh where jobs don’t exist. Anybody
can get a job here, as millions of dirt poor immigrants of every racial
background prove conclusively. There is a job within walking distance in
every American city. While jobs are available, these people refuse to
work. Why work when you don’t have to? It’s so easy to get a government
check. At the very least, people who get subsidies should have to get up
in the morning and do something, even if it’s a make believe job. But
most liberals would oppose even this simple test of responsibility.