Albert on Philanthropy, Power, and Persistent Poverty

Among his root causes I note that Albert has left out shiftlessness, stupidity, and a culture of failure. Rebuttal expected from Bradley Foundation.  Don't blame the rich for Welfare Queens, Albert. They are the problem, not the victim. Moral approbium directed to the poor is the proper response. The poor need only model themselves on the mores of the rich and they will be rich too. In a flat world the losers get flattened. Get used to it. It can't be helped. You want to help the poor, lower taxes on the rich, that will create jobs in India where people are very poor.

Comments

[Stuart Johnson]

I wonder if there's a pharisaic tradition in every domain, including philanthropy. Narrow, intolerant of ambiguity, unable to deal with the messy complexity of human behavior. This tradition believes it's less important that the innocent be spared than that we punish those who would game the system. Being most familiar with their own foibles, those who are part of this tradition would naturally mistrust others.

I grew up poor and I don't think the poor are especially good people. I also don't believe you have to like the poor to see that they're getting a raw deal, struggling both against their own poverty and the multiple daily (hourly?) confirmations of their status as losers. Having this conviction is what think-tankers call "patronizing the poor."

[Phil]

Alibis for not caring are much in demand, as are self-lauding rationales for great wealth. The result are the moral grotesques that animate the works of, say, Blake and Dickens. You see that type too, as you note, in the Gospels.