1

Joe- While I agree with your comments about the article in question, and completely disagree with the author of the piece, I think your threat to cancel your NR subscription is a bit over the top. There are many variations of conservatism out there and you're not going to agree with all of them. This woman represents one such camp. For NR to publish her piece is really no different from some of the pieces they have published by "paleo-cons" who did not favor the war in Iraq.
While I don't agree with her positions, I would hate to see NR become a narrowly focused magazine that only publishes "properly conservative" pieces (some might say it already has).

2

There once was a time when NR was a leader in the conservative movement. Now conservatism is branching out and other publications (Weekly Standard, American Conservative) are taking some of its audience. If NR is going to remain relevant it needs to have a consistent philosophy.

I do agree, however, that NR shouldn't become too narrowly focused. If the article had been a "think-piece" on why charitable giving is counter-productive I might have respectfully disagreed but appreciated the viewpoint. But printing an “anecdote” that others may take as a “properly conservative view“ is just sloppy.

As I said there is no lack of quality writing that they could have used instead of that piece. NR just need to expand its horizons a bit. Otherwise, it will print itself straight into irrelevancy.

3

I came through Matt's Trackback link --
The main problem with the anecdote is it is just plain unprofessional and sounds more like a ranting sourpuss with a heavy dose of righteous indignation. Sure conservative magazines need to be broad but this thing was just nasty. This cathartic moment should have stayed on the laptop harddrive.

4

Dudes-
- Y'all are kinda harsh on the girl... and wrongly so. As she relates her transformation from a suburban kinda-republican to a "compassionless conservative", she highlights the truth about the foolishness of liberal compassion. Charitible giving without reqiring some responsibility on the part of the recipient is foolish on the part of the giver.

- Parents such as those related in this anecdote make a strong case for Scrooge's position... too many have gotten away with too much for too long, and anyone that points this out should not be lambasted for it.

- Pardon me for being an igno-con, as I don't know just which flavor of "conservative" this position relates to.

5

I arrived here via a link and high praise from Hugh Hewitt, and am very disappointed. The criticism of the NR piece reflects a lack of perception on your part of the author's point (that we need be careful that giving does not do more harm than good) and/or moral self aggrandizement. Questioning a system that rewards the kind of behavior exhibited by the mother in this case is hardly equivalent to "maintaining the status quo for those who already possess power and privledge (sic)." For you to question NR's conservative credentials while sounding like the Dean cmapaign yourself is more than a little ironic.

6

R.M.,

***The criticism of the NR piece reflects a lack of perception on your part of the author's point (that we need be careful that giving does not do more harm than good) and/or moral self aggrandizement. ***

I think your reading more into the NR article than is there. The author's point is very clear since she states in very precisely -- she thinks a poorhouse is a preferable method of helping the poor than personal involvement. The author wasn't questioning "the system," she was questioning why she bothered to get involved in the first place. If I'm missing something I would be happy if you could use the article to point it out.

***For you to question NR's conservative credentials while sounding like the Dean cmapaign yourself is more than a little ironic.***

Personally, I do not view NR as the King James Version of Conservatism. NR's "conservative credentials" have been eroding for years as they've moved to a more libertarian position (which is, by the way, more liberal than conservative). When WFB came out in favor of drug legalization I knew the beginning of the end for NR was near.

7

JP
I think I am missing what bothered you so much about the article. In your original post you said,

When you take a position against helping your fellow man then you need to quit calling yourself a conservative...The last thing we need is a return to a conservative philosophy that is intent on maintaining the status quo for those who already possess power and priviledge.

Doesn't that depend on how you define help?

I agree the article is weak but I'm not sure it is a mark against consevatism.

8

Hey Eric,

As I wrote about in a previous post, defining “conservatism” can be tricky. But one aspect that has almost always been included in the definition is “a belief in a transcendent moral order to which we ought to try to conform the ways of society.” In my opinion, looking out for children, regardless of whether the parents are worthy of our help, is something a true believer in conservatism should always advocate. Thinking that they would be better off sent to the “poorhouse” is despicable.

The author of the piece appears to be more libertarian than conservative and I am troubled by the move to erase the distinction between the two philosophies. Pure libertarianism is even a greater threat to the social order than liberalism. So when people go around espousing libertarian ideas as “conservative” positions it really irks me.

9

JP
I can buy that. I have some major issues with the article but I wanted to understand your post a little better.

I posted on this today also.

10

Graham was not necessarily opposed to helping one's fellow-er-person (gotta stay gender-neutral, y'know). She was opposed to providing further help to one particular person. And Jesus was pretty clear on the need to foster personal responsibility.

The right position,it seem to me, is that we have a safety net that is a bit more discriminating than it frequently is today, and let people earn their way off of it- as this woman certainly seems to have donme in spades.

11

she thinks a poorhouse is a preferable method of helping the poor than personal involvement.

-IXNAY, she never said that the best way to help all the poor was to put them into poorhouses... But in the instance of such blatant irresponsibility as that demonstrated by the woman in this story, "personal involvement" is certainly not going to benefit the woman or society. Be off with her, if she is going to merely be a drain on society and not do her part to care for herself and her child.

- I have a duty to love my neighbor. Throwing money at an irresponsible parent does not constitue showing compassion... why not just pay off her drug debts so she can use her hard earned "gas money" to buy a new DVD player?

- I'm interested in the contention that this author is pushing a libertarian angle... Is this view gleaned from her other writings, or did I just miss this reference in her article?

12

Gaw,

Don't get me wrong. I am in no way condoning the mother's actions. She is wrong and should have to face the consequences of her actions. But she does have children that have to be considered.

By the way, the author didn't say that the mother should be put in the poorhouse. She said "the little family" would be better off learning the value or work by being sent to one.

As for the libertarian angle, my opinion is that this author takes a very similar position to the one I criticized before about Scrooge being a libertarian.

13

Have any of you people read Marvin Olasky? The rather obvious point she is making is that in a free society, people will USE other's squishy charitable instincts to avoid personal responsibility. In this particular case, the "compassion" of those around her, enable this mom to maximize the misery resulting from her poor choices and spread it to her children and neighbors for the longest duration.
Wake up.

14

Let me see if I have this right. She allows these children into her house, to play with her children, lends things to them, allows them to use their phone, and even houses one of the children for a week. And then, burned out from the failure in her giving she cries out no more in a screech of burned out frustration and you think this is about a hard-hearted conservative?

This is about a broken-hearted conservative, one who has been repaid with hurt for kindness and to avoid future pain is announcing to the world here emotional turtling (pulling back into her shell). Now what, exactly was she supposed to do, smile and feel chirpy about the situation?

With a bit more community support and theological maturity she might see a better way out than to retreat from the spiritual challenge of charity. But, frankly, I don't buy it.

I think that the next hard luck kid she comes across will still get a free hot meal from her. Her effort to embarrass herself into not risking emotional hurt via charity will fail, I predict. But her failure to close her heart will be no thanks to the hard hearted social conservatives who I read on this forum. She's facing a spiritual challenge and needed encouragement. Here, all she got was brickbats.

15

T.M.,

Let me see if I have this right. She allows these children into her house, to play with her children, lends things to them, allows them to use their phone, and even houses one of the children for a week. And then, burned out from the failure in her giving she cries out no more in a screech of burned out frustration and you think this is about a hard-hearted conservative?

Actually, no. My claim is that she was never really a conservative to begin with. Republican, maybe, but not conservative.

This is about a broken-hearted conservative, one who has been repaid with hurt for kindness and to avoid future pain is announcing to the world here emotional turtling (pulling back into her shell).

You’ll notice from the article that the author never wanted these type of people in her neighborhood to begin with:

But it didn't take long to realize that Tiffany's family were not, as we Grahams lightly put it, PLU: People Like Us.

Plus, her kindness was given very grudgingly:

Knowing, knowing that I would regret it, but unable to stop myself, I met the mother at the bus and offered to take Tiffany in.

Now what, exactly was she supposed to do, smile and feel chirpy about the situation?

Actually, no. What she should have done is call child protective services like any decent citizen would do. (“She heard — wrongly — that I had reported her to social services.”)

I think that the next hard luck kid she comes across will still get a free hot meal from her.

Maybe. But she sure advocates against such action:

Her effort to embarrass herself into not risking emotional hurt via charity will fail, I predict. But her failure to close her heart will be no thanks to the hard hearted social conservatives who I read on this forum. She's facing a spiritual challenge and needed encouragement. Here, all she got was brickbats.

You’re giving the author way too much credit. She advocates sending the “little family” -- not the mother, the “family” -- to the poorhouse. She was never a “compassionate conservative.” She was an uppity middleclass soccer mom who didn’t like the thought that poor people were moving onto her block. When forced, she begrudgingly did what any decent human being would do and quickly regretted it when she didn’t get a Nobel Prize for Kindness.

You have to let the author to speak for herself: poor people screw up because they aren’t like us. There’s nothing you can do to help them but send them to jail or the poorhouse so that we won’t be forced to get involved.

If you think I’m being unfair then show me using the author’s words -- not what you think she meant to say.