A recent Washington Post article titled “Most of America’s rich think the poor have it easy” concludes that America’s rich people have an inability to “understand the plight of those who have no choice but to seek help from the government.”
The author, citing a recent Pew study on this topic, suggests that the most “financially secure” respondents’ “lack of compassion” is “likely tied to conservatism.” He goes on to reference a different article published in 2014 by the Post in which the author says he has “a hard time understanding” how conservatives think the poor “have it easy.”
This article, and the one it references, jumps to illogical conclusions based on falsehoods that have been debunked for years.
First, the author fails to clearly point out that respondents to the study were given the choice to agree with one of two options:
The first option was: “Poor people have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them live decently.”
The second option was: “Poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.”
The study shows that respondents who have higher levels of financial security tend to agree more with the latter option. However, agreeing with the latter option simply does not translate to the conclusion that financially secure people believe “poor people have it easy.” If anything, the study shows that high-wage earners disagree with the notion that we need to spend even more coerced tax-payer dollars on government programs.
Second, the assumption that a lack of “support” for increased government programs shows a lack of compassion is not only an illogical leap, but it is also devoid of the basic understanding of the workings of government, as well as the true meaning of charity and compassion.
Government is not a charity, nor does it display compassion. Everything it gives to others it must first take from someone else. It would be an error to call someone “uncompassionate” because he or she does not believe in increasing the amount that government takes from others. Real compassion is giving from the heart and from one’s own things —and it is an admirable undertaking, nearly the opposite of coerced taking of property by the government.
Furthermore, to think that there are those who “have no choice but to seek help from the government” is patronizing and belittling to individuals’ abilities to make something of themselves without government handouts. Such ideology shows a lack of faith in mankind.
Third, the statement that the richest Americans — ergo conservatives according to the article — are the least compassionate group is factually wrong.
The average conservative-headed household donates 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household. Conservatives also donate more time to charity and give more blood. Of the top 25 states where people give above the national average, 24 are considered “red” states.
Conservatives understand that charity and compassion entail giving from one’s own volition, out of the goodness of one’s own heart, and with the understanding that it will help other humans. They evidently understand it better than liberals.
Conservatives also understand that the best way for able-bodied individuals to succeed is through their own hard work and perseverance, not reliance on government programs. Liberals are determined to create a culture of dependency, which does little to advance our economy or provide job opportunities for those willing and able to work.
Jiesi Zhao, Esq. is the Director of the Center for Entrepreneurship & Free Enterprise at Young America’s Foundation. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions for editorials, available at this link.
