We, as a nation, can no longer afford to allow generation after generation to grow up without hope, turn to a life of crime or dependency, and fail to contribute to our society and our communities. We can no longer afford to lose millions of children to a system that does not care about them and can not provide them the opportunity to become successful, active adults.
Over the past couple of months, we have been engaged in a debate over the best method of helping individuals in need. As this debate has unfolded, two different philosophies of helping the poor have emerged. One philosophy is based on the premise that the only entity capable of providing support to people in need is the federal government. The opposite philosophy argues that we must make a bold departure from the failed systems of the past and change our method of thinking about the problems of poverty. The first group argues that the failed system of the past needs only to be modified and that the federal government is still the best source for help. The latter believes that a federal bureaucracy can never take the place of a caring community. One believes that compassion is closely linked to money while the other argues that the trillions we have spent on the "war on poverty" provide proof that there is more to compassion than handing out resources.
What is true "compassion"? The last 30 years have demonstrated that money alone is unable to provide hope for families in need. Federal programs have lost touch with key components of compassion. The programs have failed largely because they have not provided the opportunity or the incentive for individuals to improve their lives. Our main focus in helping should be giving individuals the tools to [permanently] help themselves. It is not "kind" to blindly give resources without accountability. True compassion takes time and commitment, it is not a quick fix. Dr. Marvin Olasky, the author of The Tragedy of American Compassion, summarizes these efforts as being Challenging, Personal and Spiritual.
We should work to develop programs that incorporate all three of these elements; programs that help individuals on a one-by-one basis, develop relationships and foster responsibility. We must expect individuals to help themselves, but we must also give them tools and the encouragement to do so. By expecting something in return, we are challenging the individual and giving them a sense of worth. In talking to welfare recipients, one of the first things they will mention is the low sense of self-esteem that comes from dealing with the "system". This system, by design, can not provide the encouragement that comes from personal commitments from caring people.
Tthe solutions to the problems associated with poverty will not be found in a government bureaucracy but in the work of individuals making a personal commitment to people in need. We need to begin a process of refocusing the welfare debate from the failed systems of the past to heal people making a difference in our local communities and neigborhoods.