D.C. Councilman Marion Barry never fails to entertain.
Barry, who was famously videotaped smoking crack a few years ago, recently proposed making it a crime in the District to smoke a cigarette in a car if a child is present. Certainly children in the nation’s capital need an advocate; they are the worst off in the country — and largely because their parents inflict dire conditions upon them. But with so many children living in genuine danger, cigarette smoke sparks Barry’s outrage?
Consider that Washington, D.C., has more children living in poverty than any state in the nation. The Center for Law and Social Policy says that 32 percent of the District’s children are poor — compared to 11.6 percent in Mississippi.
But the nation’s capital isn’t an impoverished region. Its percentage of poor children reflects the disproportionate number of citizens living off the public dole. Individuals without jobs or incomes — and no intention of getting either — know that any children they produce will be poor as well. If Barry thinks it should be criminal to subject a child to the risk of secondhand smoke, why isn’t he incensed by people who deliberately subject children to poverty?
Of course, by the world’s standards, no child in the United States is actually poor. Children living in what Americans define as poverty aren’t at risk of developing scurvy; obesity is the greater threat. Housing vouchers, food stamps, Medicaid, and cash benefits provide this country’s so-called poor with a standard of living that the sick and the starving in other countries cannot even imagine.
Yet while America’s welfare system has largely eliminated economic poverty, it has created a moral poverty that is perhaps more insidious. Children whose parents live off public assistance are not being taught a work ethic. Youngsters raised in neighborhoods where the corner drug dealer is as normative as the mailman can hardly respect the rule of law. How do the children of a babydaddy ever learn the role of a responsible husband and father?
If Barry and his colleagues want to do something substantive to protect D.C.’s children, the best thing they could do would be to stop excusing anti-social behavior as cultural distinctions.
While occasional exposure to secondhand smoke is unlikely to do any serious damage, a child deprived of an education is permanently crippled. So why are D.C. Council members fretting about the dangers of cigarette smoke when the city’s school system is the worst in the country? It has the lowest graduation rate — 59.6 percent — and ranks dead last in achievement tests scores, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. Yet rather than punish school workers who have failed utterly to do their jobs, the city rewards these putative teachers with salaries that rank among the highest for teachers in the U.S. Now there’s an appropriate target for Barry’s outrage.
Incredibly, leftists continue to support the welfare state while conceding that the children within it are “at risk” of academic failure, substance abuse, and becoming either victims or perpetrators of crime. This exemplifies what President George W. Bush has called the “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Why should certain dangers be acceptable for children in some neighborhoods and unacceptable for others? Parents in Northwest D.C. can find themselves in trouble with the law if their kids don’t wear helmets while riding bikes. Kids in Anacostia are exposed to gunfire, and no one excoriates their parents.
Indeed, to give those parents a pass, the city ignores its own policies on child welfare. According to D.C.’s Child and Family Services Agency, child abuse and neglect is indicated when “illegal behaviors are taught to a child,” the child experiences “perceived or actual threats of harm” or is “residing in an inappropriate/dangerous living environment” or “experiences disruption in his/her living situation.” That describes the lives of about 100,000 youngsters in the District.
It is stunning that Americans so blithely accept certain children living “at risk.” Why isn’t it unacceptable for any parent to subject their child to danger?
If Barry and his colleagues truly want to protect children from toxic environments, they can stop worrying about smoke-filled cars and focus on the perils of the welfare state. Otherwise, any pretense to be acting in kids’ best interest is just a smokescreen.
Examiner columnist Melanie Scarborough lives in Alexandria.
