The Charity of the Egalitarian

An older one from Henry Dampier, How Hierarchy is Kinder to the Poor Than Equality:

Egalitarianism turns poverty into something like a chronic medical condition that requires a treatment or a cure. This denies the poor the self-respect that might otherwise be accorded to them were society allowed to recognize their true position in life relative to others. Further, by treating poverty like a disease, superior people lose their sense of obligation to provide personal leadership and guidance to the impoverished members of society.

Dampier is onto something I've been turning over in my mind. Progressivism is a form of moral cowardice cloaked in moral superiority. The progressive does nothing to help suffering individuals, yet he considers himself a good--better--person because he votes for his government to perform charity in his name. Holiness with no heavy lifting.

The progressive refuses to give a hungry man a place at his table then turns around and rages at the injustice of a society that allows a man to starve.

What he really rages at is a society that allows a starving man to exist. However we get to an absence of starving people, whether by breaking the lock on the supermarket's doors, or packing them away in workhouses, or putting them out of their misery--any of that can be rationalized, as long as he doesn't have to look into a pleading face. Even the progressive understands that he might find himself saying, "No." How can he live with that?

There is another element in the egalitarian's perspective on poverty--vanity. If all are equal and if the progressive has emptied everyone else's pockets to promote equal opportunity, then his exalted position can only be explained by his wonderful self. He could have done it, too. It's just that I'm more...And that's especially delicious when it comes with no responsibility towards others.

The poor will always be with us, so it’s our duty to provide them with dignified, stable, respectable roles of service within civilization.

Quite right. If we accept that there is inequality among people, then we are given the question, What are we to do about it? It's a question that can only be approached morally because any other way gets very ugly, very fast.