Call of the Wild

This past week, something that I never thought would happen, actually came to pass: I actually found myself agreeing with a libertarian viewpoint. It surprises me to even write that, but when the State of Maryland and its Child Protection Services intervened to detain two children who were walking home alone, I could not help but feel that there are times when the "less government" crowd is onto something.

Impossible claims aside - and let's face it, I could no more embrace a libertarian worldview than become the next President of USA (or India, for that matter) - I did find myself wondering what was wrong with our government that it devotes its time to grabbing children of the street and threatening to separate them from their parents. Yet, what was even stranger, was the revelation that the officials involved were following the law in their actions - Maryland actually requires that all children under the age of thirteen be accompanied by a guardian. What I did realize, once I'd filtered out all the noise and hyperbole, was that this is a perfect example of what I'd discussed a few blogs ago, that we pass laws with excellent intentions that then become impediments to other equally well-intentioned individuals. In this case, we have a law that was clearly meant to provide protection for children and ensure that the authorities had permission to intervene when they perceived a need. Of course, perception is everything and what the zealous officers of the local police and CPS felt was warranted was viewed quite differently by the parents who were at the receiving end. Hyperbole aside, and I feel quite sure that both parties will exaggerate the aspect that suits their narrative and downplay all else, the fact is that like the blind men conducting a tactile examination of a pachyderm, all are slightly right and also wrong.

Now those who want less government in our lives may immediately point to this case as evidence enough that the government needs to be reigned in and downsized. Sadly, things are never quite so simple. It was not the police in black helicopters who swooped in to seize the children, rather they were summoned by a concerned citizen. I would wager much that the concerned neighbor who saw two small children walking by alone had no idea that it was actually in the law that they should be accompanied but instinctively felt that it was not right and hence summoned the police. He, or she, was driven by the best of intentions and as a quick perusal of any discussion forum will reveal, there are many who share that opinion and would censure a parent for sending their children out alone. There are many though who feel that parents have the right to raise their kids as they see fit and that such laws as allow the State to intervene between parent and child are wholly misplaced and need to be repealed. Life, though is painted in subtle shades of grey, and there is no easy demarcation between the rights of parents and the responsibilities of the State.

Even were it possible to draw a bright line in this particular instance, there are so many more cases that muddy the water. Should children be prevented from touching any alcohol or should parents be allowed to choose when and where their child is exposed to the fruit of the vine? We not only proscribe parents from making this choice, but we threaten them with dire consequences for any infringement. This may be one law that is driven by self-righteous and meddling busybodies, and one that causes far more harm than it prevents but it also enjoys plentiful support. Vaccinations, and the refusal of some parents to allow it, is yet another hot issue, and the State may claim a legitimate interest, while parents may, and do, argue that it is their right to make that decision for their children. Methods of disciplining children is but one more example where the State often intervenes and separates children from parents. The target is abusive parents, but we have yet to find a universally accepted definition of child abuse. While caning or the use of a cat-o'-nine-tails may be generally accepted to be off limits, spanking, slaps and even yelling are still debated with great passion by both sides of the question. There is little doubt in the most egregious of cases, but it is the borderline and debatable cases that usually draw widespread attention, in part because of their ambiguity, and because of the passion they excite by partisans of all political stripes. It is worth noting here, that some of my more militantly atheistic friends claim that indoctrinating children in blind faith is a form of child abuse, an idea with which no religious parent would ever agree, highlighting once more my familiar refrain. One could sift through and find thousands upon thousands of similar examples, and they all show one thing: it is not the over-reach of the State that is the problem, but difficulty in formulating a law that protects the weak and powerless without intruding on the individual's privacy and sovereignty.

In cases such as this, it is worth pausing to reflect that the laws we hate, while sometimes deserving of our approbation, were usually, if not always a result of a public demand. An excellent case in point is the laws on sexual offenders. There are laws that prevent convicted offenders from living anywhere near all sorts of institutions - schools, parks, churches - which were enacted to meet a public desire to be safe from such menaces. Of course, the consequences can be quite devastating for those affected directly and sometimes counter productive; many sex offenders are unable to find accommodation (for who wants a rapist as a neighbor?) and hence logically unable to comply with the terms of their parole. This is but a single extreme case, but there are plenty more like this. The fault is not "the government" for our elected representatives typically act in ways that will win them continued support. And in the words of Lincoln, after all, we have a government of the people and by the people. When it seems that our government is not really acting in the interests of the people, we should take a deep breath and realize that in fact it very likely is expressing the will of the people and it is, we the people who have no clear idea of what we want. We are usually quite clear on how much  the State may encroach upon our lives, but we rarely are in agreement on the proper boundaries for our neighbors.

A Right to Dignity

"It is better to live on one's knees than die on one's feet"
The dirty old man who reminded Nately of his father was one of the few people who celebrated living bereft of dignity. Tobe honest many, if not most, of us would choose life, even in the most degrading servitude, over the most glorious of deaths. Some cultures might vary, with Vikings, Spartans and Samurai to name but a few who would embrace death in combat over the chance to live, but that kind of thinking must be drummed into one from infancy to truly become a mantra of life (or death, in this case). Not only do few societies today embrace a culture of death so happily, but it is also a lot easier to go out in a blaze of glory when high on battle excitement and a lot harder when one's dignity is stripped slowly and incrementally.

More importantly, few Americans would exult in a chance to demean and degrade their enemies, and even to the extent that they may, they would strenuously deny that they derive an iota of enjoyment from the act. The Romans may have enjoyed the sight of their enemies paraded in chains through the Forum, and roared in approval as those unfortunates met their death for the public entertainment, but we live in more civilized times. We may secretly enjoy the humiliation of our most cherished public figures, but we leave the public stripping to the tabloids and hold ourselves aloof from the act, while gorging our voyeuristic tendencies behind a veil of anonymity. We would never admit especially that we were responsible for the debasement of our idols, and with impressive self-righteousness, we tell each other that it is not our actions that fuel the fire that consumes them but rather that they have fallen only because of their own imperfections.

It is this refusal to admit the degradation of our fellows and our willful delusion that they must somehow deserve their fate that permits the stripping of every vestige of human dignity from "the others". The others could be anyone, marked with the sign of Cain by their enemies and declared to be less deserving of the right to human dignity, the same dignity that we not only demand for ourselves but which we declare the right of all men and is so entrenched in the psyche of Americans. Those others have included, at different times, ethnic groups like the Irish, the Italians, the Germans, the Asians, the blacks, the Mexicans; it has also encompassed religious groups - the Mormons, the Jews and today, the Muslims; professions have been included, like the Vietnam vets, the hippie students who opposed the War. Sometimes the groups consigned to the outskirts may be logical enough, like union labor or police or fat-cat bankers, but can also include seemingly strange targets, like teachers in Wisconsin, airport flight controllers. But above all, we love to demonize and dehumanize the weakest members of society - the poor and the unemployed.

The one thing that has always marked the stigmatization of a group has been the wish to paint that group in broad strokes, pinning real or imaginary crimes of a few on the entirety. If a few Muslims embrace hatred for the West and employ terrorist tactics, the demagogues then portray all Muslims as guilty by virtue of a shared faith. The miniscule group that uses fraud to enjoy the largesse of a welfare state are proof enough that all the poor and unemployed are out to cheat us and need to be watched carefully at all times.

This latter group has enjoyed a prominent place on our list of hatred for a long time, seemingly bound up into the unique way that Americans view the world, and having only themselves to blame if they are poor instead of living in McMansions. The hatred has surged and ebbed, but never really gone away, and is now enjoying a new energy. Though we know that nearly anyone could have lost their jobs or money in the Great Recession and that many who suffered that misfortune may never recover like jobs or clamber back to the same economic footing, yet we quietly accept the insults heaped on the indigent. Those same unfortunates blamed for being poor were once our friends and colleagues - I'll wager that few of us did not know someone who lost their job or house or both as the recession swept through our nation, destroying lives and wealth. Yet we sit silent, because those erstwhile equals are now the "other". We barely murmur a protest when insults are heaped upon the poor, be in daily imprecations by the all knowing talking heads of TV or the soul sapping demands placed on them by antagonistic governments. We sat silently while Florida demanded that Welfare recipients undergo mandatory drug tests, and though the program never showed any significant evidence that this was justified, still we rewarded its architect with a second term of office, basically endorsing the demeaning treatment of our fellow men. Now we watch passively while Kansas seeks to close a deficit of its own making by cutting benefits to its least empowered, and requires a humiliating accounting of their spending. Seemingly paternalistic and intrusive government is less important than bringing these wastrels to heel!

But hypocrisy aside, the issue here is not the actions of the government, but our willingness to play along. We gladly suspend empathy and embrace the narrative of hatred. Hatred comes in many shapes and colors, and it's not always garbed in black and screaming "Death to America". It can be far less visible and more insidious, erecting walls between citizens, turning us against each other. When we are willing to hate our neighbors, we have no chance to bridge the gaps with the rest of humanity that's further removed. And that suits the demagogues who seek power on the basis of hatred and division. Divided by ideology but united by method, they deal only in hatred of the others, the outsiders; we empower them when we refuse to think for ourselves and reject empathy for those others.

We need to remember that but for a few chances - of birth, of location, of opportunity - we may well be that unshaven, unwashed man standing by the freeway exit, broken and hopeless. Perhaps he too had a good job and comfortable life a few months ago, perhaps he has been homeless for years. Perhaps he worked fifty hour weeks till his employer went bankrupt and ended his idyl, or perhaps he does not care to work. Perhaps he went bankrupt when he ran up huge medical bills, or perhaps he has never paid a bill in his life. The important thing to remember is that we do not know what his (or her) life has been, we have not walked in their shoes or faced the awful choices they've made. We do not sit in comfort because we are deserving; perhaps we made some good choices along the way, but we live well mostly because of good fortune. We were born into reasonably affluent families, we were able to get good educations, we had the right guidance and mentors when we needed them - we had no hand in any of those events, and yet they have placed us where we are far more than anything we've done ourselves.

Humility in the knowledge of our good fortune and empathy for those who fell along the road should be our default stance, rather than a smug self-righteousness. We may not be able to personally help every person in need, but we can start by suspending judgement and we can hold our appointed agents, our government to the same recognition of reality. We universally agree that people deserve a second chance. But, in the words of Franklin Roosevelt, they also enjoy a right to "live in peace, honor and human dignity--free to speak, and pray as they wish--free from want--and free from fear". Refusing to treat them as criminals for being poor, refusing to humiliate them for needing help is the first step in freeing them from want and fear. A man forced to live on his knees is not a man able to stand on his feet.