Any vocal conservative has heard the charge that they are insensitive, “Scrooge-like” and just plain evil. Conservatives usually pass it off as another ad-hominem attack based on straw-man arguments but might these charges actually hold water?
Videos By Rare
We know this isn’t true because studies have shown that those who identify as conservative give more to charities and non-profits than liberals do, especially conservatives who identify as Christians. So, we are not Scrooge-like with our money. Therefore, how can the original charge stick yet be untrue?
When liberals hear that we are against welfare, all they hear is that conservatives don’t care for the poor. When liberals hear that we don’t want people on food stamps, all they hear is that we want America to go hungry. When liberals hear that we are against Obamacare, all they hear is that conservatives want people to die of illnesses. All these perceived positions are false but why are they still perceived as true? The simple answer is that conservatives have been less than forthcoming in explaining their true beliefs.
For example, welfare and food stamps are a big topic around the proverbial water cooler, especially over the Walmart EBT debacle. When conservatives say “It is wrong to take money from one person and give it to another” it is hard not to hear “I am greedy and this is my money not yours.” Everyone can agree that greed is a bad thing and a horrible character trait, so why make it sound as if you’re greedy? Say the truth like this: “Welfare doesn’t really help the individual in the long run.” This will spark a curious response rather than being blown off as an insensitive jerk. The concern is about the subject matter and not your pocketbook.
The whole argument should go more like this:
“Welfare and food stamps hurt the individual because they make people dependent rather than self-sufficient. Welfare was never designed for people to be on it for extended periods of time though this is the harsh truth of today.
So, in this regard, welfare has failed by its own standard. And doing away with the work requirement makes this scenario worse. If there is no incentive to get a job, why would anyone with a brain give up a free check to go work 40-plus hours a week? This promotes a society that refuses to work, that ends up breaking down the family and deprives people of the satisfaction of a hard day’s work.
In addition, a lot of the taxpayer money that can be used for welfare and food-stamp recipients ends up getting tied up in the implementation of the programs, the government employee’s salaries and their lavish health benefits. The government spent $41.3 million in advertising food stamps alone. So, many of the dollars collected for welfare and food stamps don’t even make it to those in need.
This is why private institutions — like non-profits, churches, and individual families — should help those in need, as they tend to distribute need in a more responsible way than the governments one-size-fits-all model. The government always has ulterior motives and can’t even implement a website, let alone a program to help millions of individuals.”
Though taking money from one to give to another at the end of a barrel of a gun is clearly wrong, the above argues a clearer picture of why welfare is bad, and delivers the truthful message in a more sensitive way — in a way that may cause others to pause and think about taking you seriously.
In order to communicate with those who care for people, stick to the subject. The subject is those in need, not your pocketbook. How can you help those in need? Stick to local organizations and churches, and always remember to give! Give like the Ebenezer Scrooge at the end of “A Christmas Carol.”
Rocco Palmerine is a writer and political junkie. Follow him on Twitter @RoccoPalmerine