MIDDLE-CLASS POLICIES TOWARD POOR PEOPLE,
AND POOR NEIGHBORHOODS
As a starting point, let me state – clearly, directly, and up-front – that I have no fantasies or delusions that I have some special type of skill in knowing the best ways to deal with poor people. Instead, my intent is to say something along the lines of, “This is what makes the most sense to me, as a non-expert, and this is where I would go looking, first, for hints and clues that might help lead to some answers. So, if there are any genuine experts in this subject who find these comments interesting, promising, and worth more attention, I hope they’ll get in touch with me.”
The initial statement of position is so painfully obvious and simplistic that it seems embarrassing to even put it into words. If “middle class” is defined to include (this is not intended to be sexist, as stated previously) any man (of any race, ethnicity, etc.) who works for a living, pays taxes, helps raise his own kids, and has enough financial stability to be at least somewhat able to help make his neighborhood and community better – as mentioned on a prior page, that is a fair, solid, and reasonable definition of `middle class’ in America, today – then it becomes painfully obvious that the best way to help the middle class (and to help enlarge and stabilize it), when it comes to how our government and society should deal with the poor, is by helping as many poor people as possible climb out of welfare and other forms of dependency and poverty, and climb up into the middle class. By holding jobs, paying taxes, and helping raise their own kids, middle-class workers actively contribute to the strength and stability of America; by contrast, people who are on welfare, and who are constantly wanting to be paid more and more money out of `the public trough’ (supplied by taxpayers), do not. For that painfully simple and obvious reason, our society (and our finances) would be better off, if we could find better ways to do more, to actually help more people climb up out of the poor and welfare-dependent economic levels, and up into a `holding a job, and paying taxes’ level. If middle class citizens and taxpayers can push and drive politicians to enact policies which will help even a modest percentage of poor people climb up out of the poorest and almost-poorest economic levels, up closer to (and, in many cases, into) the middle class, then our entire society, and nation, would become stronger, and more stable. Any merchant or service-provider would benefit from having more people who can afford to buy the goods or services that the sellers are selling; and, the heavy costs of welfare, crime prevention, and prisons, would also go down, as well.
Since the INITIAL answer is so simple and obvious, that means the REAL and DIFFICULT questions arise, next. Well, then why don’t we do more of that? Why aren’t we actually doing more, today, to get more people off of welfare, and into working positions?
Numerous programs – some at the federal level, some at state levels, and some at local levels – have been started, as efforts and attempts to do exactly that. But, I have never heard of, found, or read about, even a single well-done and wide-ranging review, which could help show which particular efforts tend to work effectively, and which do not. So, the need we are facing, now, is how to analyze – and then improve upon – how well, and how poorly, various programs have been performing, which were started with the goal of accomplishing the goal of getting people off of welfare, and into working lives. This would be a very good time for a thorough and systematic review, of not just a few efforts, but of all the efforts by federal agencies, and in states and cities across the nation, to see how well each such effort actually performed, and to try to discern why the poor-performers didn’t do better, and to identify any tweaks, improvements, or changes which seem to offer the most potential for improving actual performance, and results.
Those types of “project reviews” are commonly and widely used, to a point where they are pretty much standard operating procedure, in business and private enterprise; and yet, I have never seen any reports of anything similar being done, by any government agencies that have budgetary and operating control over these types of programs. Accordingly, The Two-Party Party would urge that any such studies and reviews become the subject of a high-profile review, which would help give all voters in the US (and, all members of Congress) a better sense of whether (and how) we have been able to make actual progress, in getting people off of welfare, and helping them climb up into the middle class.
I would also urge that any such review should find ways to include – and even actively recruit – active participation and cooperation by every major player and segment, in society. This would set out to create an active combination of government agencies at all levels (federal, state, and local), along with private enterprise, churches, schools, and any civic groups or clubs, private foundations, etc., with all of them engaged in a type of partnership, where none of the partners needs to control or dominate any of the others, and where the goal is for them to find ways to cooperate, exchange valuable and useful information, and work “in harmony”, in areas where they cannot directly work “together”. If that type of major effort could get started, all five of those major sectors (government, private enterprise, churches, schools, and other private organizations) could actively gain and benefit from more and better opportunities to begin working together, more closely and actively than they have in the past.
As an aside, for anyone who hears alarms go off whenever anyone suggests some type of cooperation which might lead to government and church officials attending the same planning meetings, I would recommend this article as starting point, for anyone who wants to try to figure out where the law actually stands, on that issue, today: "The Supreme Court’s Religion Conundrum", by Marcia Coyle (www.constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-supreme-courts-religion-conundrum ). Ms. Coyle has been the Chief Washington Correspondent for The National Law Journal for more than 20 years. That article is only as a starting point for analysis, because it cites a controversial 1990 decision (Employment Division v. Smith, easily found via a Google search) but then declines to mention that that decision triggered a federal law, in response (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993). That federal law was then overturned by the Supreme Court, leading to a patchwork of state laws, in some but not all states. In her article, Ms. Coyle focused on several other Supreme Court cases that were still pending at that time, which she hoped might resolve some of the unanswered questions arising from the Smith decision. However, those subsequent decisions (notably including Fulton v Philadelphia, also easily found) are more notable for their attempts to sidestep hard issues, by resorting to unsteady balance points, than for any efforts to clarify where the law actually stands. For example, the Fulton case gave conservatives the result they wanted, but then it took extra, additional steps to explicitly limit that result to the very narrow facts of that one, single, specific, particular, localized case.
In addition to pointing out that we need to do a serious review and evaluation of what has worked well, and what has not, in helping poor people climb out of poverty and up into the middle class, we also should squarely recognize, and be willing to honestly and candidly discuss and debate, any problems which we already know (without having to wait for the results of any additional studies) are hindering and impeding efforts to help the poor. Those issues include the following:
(1) in view of the huge and horrible debts and deficits we will have to begin struggling with in the coming years, ANY decision or effort which is seen (or which can be portrayed, by opponents) as diverting or reallocating more funding toward the poor, will rapidly trigger powerful suspicions, and strong objections, from anyone who thinks THEY should be getting more of that money, instead of giving it to the poor;
(2) there are powerful biases and beliefs, not just among the wealthy, but among the middle class as well, that large numbers of poor people are indeed poor, largely because they do not know how to handle and use money intelligently; so, if more money is given to the poor, they will waste and squander large parts of it, rather than using it productively;
(3) as soon as anyone tries to discuss a possible way to help lift people out of poverty, a number of highly vocal people, who see themselves as (or who aspire to become) leaders of African-Americans, will immediately begin making calls for “reparations”, to make up for the past injustices of slavery. For right or wrong, better or worse, the fact is that such calls will immediately inject levels and types of divisiveness, into any such debates, which will quickly turn any potentially useful debates into generally angry and unproductive arguments. As pointed out many times, people can listen to understand, or they can listen to argue. The concern, and the problem, is that if a serious effort to help poor people climb out of poverty, gets turned into arguments over reparations – if people begin listening to argue, rather than to understand – that will severely increase the chances that no actual and genuine progress will be made, in actually helping poor people climb out of poverty. So, I would raise the question as to whether some of the leaders of “the reparations movement” might be persuaded to agree on a compromise position, where “a genuine and serious effort to help poor people climb out of poverty” might come to be accepted, and supported, as a better, more practical, and actually achievable alternative to (or perhaps `form of’) reparations payments.
DEALING WITH RACISM, AND RACISTS
We also need to make a better, more serious, and more sustained effort to address racism, in America, if we hope to be able to lift large numbers of African-Americans out of poverty, and up into the middle class. As one who has studied a lot of biology, I regard racism as just one particular category of a larger set of behaviors called `selfish gene behaviors’. This page, on this website, is emphatically NOT the best place to try to explain or summarize `selfish gene behavior’; it is a severely complex and difficult subject, which likely would cause most readers, at a political website, to simply give up, turn away, and click to some other website. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to at least mention `selfish gene behavior’ as the fundamental source and cause of racism, because it is a topic that needs to be recognized, and faced up to, by anyone who is willing to work seriously and sincerely toward trying to reduce the problems that are being caused by racism, today, in America.
Boiled down to its essence, `selfish gene behavior’ teaches that humans (and all vertebrate animals, and even insects) naturally and instinctively divide people into `us’ groups (which the people or animals) doing the rankings will then try to help, support, cooperate with, and fight for), versus `them’ groups (which people and animals will then begin to regard with anger and animosity, since `they’ are rivals, competitors, enemies, etc.). Except in cases where “direct rivalries” come into play, `us versus them’ rankings and decisions almost always reflect and obey an instinctive desire to help and promote those people who are most like you, and more closely related to you, against the competition and threats posed by less-closely-related rivals and enemies. As a white male, if I look at any white male, and any black/African-American male, I will instinctively recognize, and know, that the other white male, and I, share more of our genes, than either one of us shares with that black male. So, the next mental step, for a white male, is to automatically and instinctively regard any other white male as more of an `us’ group member, while the black male gets pushed and ranked downward, in some less-related `them’ group. That is the nature and essence of racism; and, racism is simply one specific manifestation of a larger and broader type of animal behavior called `selfish gene behavior’. Because of `selfish gene behavior’, most people are more inclined to help members of their own race, than members of other races.
A FIRST point which needs to be made, is this: if we know and understand the facts, the instincts, and the types of reasoning mentioned above, and if we are willing and able to honestly accept, and face up to, and address those facts and behaviors as one of the central and crucial issues in modern American society (and law, and politics, and policing, etc.), then we will have better chances of finding useful and effective ways to deal with those unpleasant and actively harmful facts and behaviors, than if we try to ignore them, refuse to face up to them, and allow them to be twisted and warped into pretenses, rationales, and excuses that large numbers of `white people’ will use, to try to undercut, belittle, damage, and hold down people from minority races.
A SECOND point which also needs to be made, is this: `selfish gene behavior’ is not an inherently bad thing. Instead, it belongs in the category of things that are good, but only in moderation, and when under proper control. A solid and realistic ability to understand and work intelligently with `us versus them’ groups, is part of what is necessary, for any young person to feel a true, genuine, and deep commitment to being willing to work hard and sacrifice, if it will help protect that person’s family, tribe, village, and relatives. It sits at the heart of what motivates and guides things like teamwork, cooperation, collective efforts, and partnerships.
The problem is that for too many people, the concepts of teamwork, cooperation, contribution, and partnership tend to stall, stop, and run out of reasons and desires to keep climbing higher, once they reach a plateau that can be described as, `family, friends, and people who look like me and speak the same language as me.’ That large, flat, solid and stable plateau is indeed reasonable, logical, and sensible, and I don’t hate or begrudge people who choose to stop there. Instead, I will suggest – in the hope of helping more people figure out how to deal with people who choose to stop at that logical plateau – that the best and most promising way to reason with people who choose to stop at the `and people who look like me' plateau, should include messages that would roughly translate into, “You’re not evil, for wanting to stop, at this plateau. It does indeed offer a lot of good things. However, as someone who has been working for years, as a guide, helping people of all types climb this mountain, again and again, I can tell you something which you have not yet seen, and I will swear to you that it is indeed true, and real. If you will climb one more plateau higher, and learn how to work skillfully with still more people – who can be, and who want to be, on your side, and who would genuinely like a chance to be teammates with you – you will find that life, work, the ability not just to accomplish but also to truly enjoy things, and a lot of other things as well, are all better, up there, at that higher level. So, if WE – me, and my assistants – will work with you, and will commit to becoming part of your next-step-forward, higher level `us’ group, which you can join and belong to if you wish – are YOU willing to put in the time, effort, and energy it will take, to climb up to that higher and better plateau?”
The simple fact – as proven repeatedly by history and human nature – is that there are better, more useful, more sophisticated, more powerful and helpful and insightful judging criteria, than just skin color, which people can use – if they will learn how – to help them identify the best teammates, partners, and cooperators for them, based on their needs and goals at any particular point or stage in their lives. Making a major and long-lasting decision, choice, and commitment – based on nothing more than skin color – is one of the least intelligent, least insightful, least helpful, and least useful ways, to make an important decision.
Instead of turning a major decision into a single irrevocable and unchangeable choice and commitment, think of major decisions as having three stages, one after the other. In the first stage, there are good ways to make solid and useful `first draft’ choices and commitments, to pick out a set of promising teammates. In the second stage, once a team has been chosen, there are good ways to use intelligence, cooperation, training, coaching, and other skills, to get that initial `US’ group better prepared, better equipped, and more ready to compete effectively, against any `THEM’ groups. And, in the third stage, there are ways to release and remove members who, for whatever reason, are not working out well, and to bring in new members with potential to make the `us’ group better. The point worth noting is, both of those second and third stages require flexibility, adaptability, and a willingness to face facts, squarely and honestly; and, one of the problems that arises, when someone makes decisions based on race and skin color, is that the types of stubborn, biased, and prejudiced attitudes that have to be carried, as the baggage of racism, directly degrade and hinder an ability to stay flexible, adaptable, and willing to look honestly at the outcomes and results of decisions made earlier.
If anyone needs evidence or proof of that point, they can look at the professional athletes, and major-league teams, in any sport that has a major league, and millions of fans. With the arguable exception of ice hockey (which is different, for its own reasons), all the other major sports became integrated, over a span of about 20 years, after they all realized, consistently, that there were far, far better ways to choose and then work with truly top-level athletes and competitors, if they would set aside and ignore skin color, instead of using that one single factor as an all-or-nothing, do-or-die factor. If they wanted to win actual championships, in direct competition against other teams, they had to choose and hire athletes based on merit, rather than skin color. So, racists can and should at least try to learn from their examples. Learn how to do the same thing they did, without having to take 20 years to figure out how to do it. They already did it, so look at how they did it, and then, figure out how to do the same thing, in less time.
Moving past the issue of racism, the position of both The Middle Class Manifesto, and The Two-Party Party, is that society – and, politicians, and political leaders in particular – need to find ways to:
(1) help loosen, relieve, and reduce a number of predatory behaviors and policies that hold poor people back, and keep them marginalized and living on the outer fringes of productive society. The problems that need to be addressed include: (a) black-on-black crime and violence; (b) policies that encourage business owners to suction any money they can get from a poor neighborhood, out of that neighborhood, as quickly as possible, rather than enabling and encouraging that money to circulate through that neighborhood several times, before it is taken out; and, (c) improvements that need to be made to public schools, public education, and after-school activities that are available to children and teenagers in low-income areas;
(2) develop better ways to teach and show poor people how to use what money they have, more skillfully and productively; and, create incentives and rewards for those who actually begin using their money more skillfully; and,
(3) find ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, among the poor and unwed.
Finally, I will add one more mention, of something which might be able to genuinely help the cause. The best book I have ever read, on how people (and churches) can actually and genuinely help poor inner-city neighborhoods, is called The People Parish. It was written by Fr. Gerald Kleba, a Catholic priest in St. Louis. Fr. Kleba was (and still is) a personal friend of the large Catholic family I married into, after I moved to St. Louis for a new job, met a wonderful woman, and married her.
Each and every chapter, in Kleba's book, was the story of how he had worked with his (mostly black/African-American) parishioners, to identify a specific problem, and find a way to, if not solve it, then at least make it “less bad”. As I kept reading, I realized that his approach was a marvelous demonstration of a management tactic I had read about, years earlier, in the classic business management book, In Search of Excellence. The strategy is called `The Chunking Strategy.’ It says that one of the most effective and successful business strategies is for management to identify the most important “chunks” that cause, aggravate, or clutter and entangle the worst problems that some company division is facing, at any given time. Instead of trying to solve an entire major problem, all at once, analyze it carefully to see whether one or more `chunks’ of that problem are playing key roles in causing that problem or making it worse, and if so, what the best strategy would be, to work on and hammer on that particular identified chunk, with better, more controlled focus, and with the increased level of pressures that can be generated by using a narrower focus. As companies figure out how to use that type of controlled and focused pressure, to make genuine progress toward solving the most important `chunks’ of larger problems, they usually find that if a crucial part of a problem can be solved, then the entire problem is likely to begin getting better, as the other parts of the problem begin adapting to the new and better reality which was achieved by taking care of a difficult and unwanted `chunk' sitting in the middle of a serious problem. And, if a management team can actually solve 1 or 2 of its most difficult, challenging, and important problems, one year; and then, actually solve another 1 or 2 of its most difficult, challenging, and important other problems, the next year; and then, actually solve another 1 or 2 of its most difficult, challenging, and important other problems, the next year after that . . . well, it won’t take too many years for that management team to be recognized, within a larger company, as one of the best and most effective long-term strategic teams that the company has, even though they did not start out with that as their goal. The trick was to break down larger problems into workable, manageable `chunks’, and to then seriously tackle, focus on, work on, and make progress in actually solving problems, one chunk at a time.
I assume there were more overlaps, and fewer real boundaries, between the different chunks that Fr. Kleba was describing, in his book; nevertheless, the way he devoted each chapter to how he and his congregation tried to solve a particular problem, gave a powerful impression that he was indeed using `the chunking strategy’ to very good effect. So, for anyone wanting to try to actually help solve problems in poor neighborhoods, I would recommend that book as, at the very least, a good starting-point description of what some of those problems actually are.