Why the idea that fiscal conservatives hate poor people?

Great Debates
1

I’m a fiscal conservative, meaning that I favor a very limited role for the government. Often when fiscal conservatives express the view that the government shouldn’t do a particular program (such as something to help poor people), they are leveled with the charge of not caring about the problem that the program would solve (ie, hating or being apathetic towards poor people). I’m currently involved in a pit thread where this very thing is going on (on BB so no link).

Why?

One answer is the inability of fiscal liberals to separate out the questions of whether something should be done and whether the government should do it. It is exceedingly rare to see a fiscal liberal even engage in a discussion about whether the government should do something–most often the question is dismissed with “who else can do it?” Or something similar.

This is one of the most frustrating aspects of discussing these issues. Many fiscal liberals don’t even technically disagree with me on an issue–they’ve just never thought about the issue in the first place.

So, you talk now, thanks.

2

There is (for me, a conservative) a puzzling and frustrating assumption at the foundation of the those on the left. That is: the best way to help the the greatest number of poor is to give them stuff. Tis is what it boils down to. It can very well be the case that less entitlements is a better route. Just look at welfare.

I’m of the ind that we need a safety net, but we should craft policies that would result with the fewest people winding up in the net. Some on the left think that the way to gauge how well the government is doing is look at the number of people being helped by the net; and the more the better.

3

I think because it is not just that they oppose spending money on the poor (which I can understand). It is more that the more authoritarian conservatives seem to hold the weak in contempt.

Study by Erich Fromm and Bob Altemeyer on authoritarianism (which is different from libertarianism, but which has taken over the contemporary conservative movement) shows attitudes like emulation of the strong and disdain for the weak to be traits of authoritarians.

So you have situations where socially or economically marginalized groups like gays, blacks, immigrants, low wage workers, etc. are treated with disdain while powerful, mainstream orgs like large corporations, the military, the police, the church etc are admired and followed.

I’m having trouble describing what I’m getting at. My point is that in my experience it is more that authoritarian conservatives seem to disdain the weak. The weak are generally those who are socially and economically marginalized.

I don’t believe libertarians who don’t think the gov. should have a role in helping the poor hate the poor. I don’t think the government should control some things too. I don’t want the government controlling agricultural production and distribution. That doesn’t mean I hate food.

But the libertarians in the GOP have mostly been pushed aside and replaced by authoritarians. Goldwater supported civil rights for blacks in his personal life, despite not feeling it was the government’s job to promote those rights. I disagree with his position (his view that the gov shouldn’t intervene in civil rights), but can respect it. On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh seems to actively disdain those who are socially marginalized. The disgust people like Limbaugh seem to have for poor people, blacks, immigrants, etc. is palpable.

So to me it is a dichotomy of libertarianism vs authoritarianism in my view. Authoritarians actually disdain the weak and the marginalized (while fawning over the strong & mainstream). Libertarians just don’t feel it is the government’s job to help them.

4

No, it’s because that they know quite well that if the government doesn’t solve those problems, do those tasks, most of the problems government solves won’t get solved. Period. History demonstrates this; non-government people and organizations had thousands of years to solve the problems that govenment had to finally be called in to try to fix. Those private organizations either didn’t seriously try, or had nowhere near the resources. If something isn’t profitable, then the government is the nearly always the best organization for the job.

The open hatred and contempt the “fiscal conservatives” have for those less fortunate or people they don’t personally know is another reason, Mister “The Weak Should Perish”.

And “fiscal conservatives” is in quotes, because the vast majority of people who call themselves that are simply lying. They have no problem wasting money right and left if it benefits them or their pet causes; it’s only using money to help other people they hate. “Fiscal conservatism” the vast majority of the time is nothing more than an excuse for spendthrifts to feel virtuous while they exploit and oppress those who can’t fight back.

Or they thought about it long ago, and just don’t care. Not everyone considers the government doing something to be automatically bad. They aren’t going to ask “should the government be doing this”, because there’s no point; why build a new tool when one is right there, ready to use?

5

Basically, if you have money and don’t share it (via taxes), that means you hate poor people.

You know, I can say that preceding sentence but my brain can’t quite process it. I grew up poor. It wasn’t the level of poverty where I had to eat cockroaches but I did wear 2nd hand clothes. A luxury meal once a month was the McDonalds hamburgers and 2 or 3 times a year was Pizza Hut (when they still had sit down restaurants.)

My parents never taught us to covet, curse, or envy rich people. If you want money, you pursue an education and earn it. If we can’t afford college, we will sacrifice and scrimp to help fund your education but at the same time you will work your way through college. Blaming rich people for our problems was not even in our vocabulary. To be honest, the attitude of many poor people and their sense of entitlement frustrate me.

6

On the other hand, just because someone is an economic libertarian and not an authoritarian does not mean they do not hate the poor.

They could very well look down on them as lesser beings, having brought all of their economic and/or health woes on themselves due to weakness of character, completely unrelated to their thoughts on an ideal governmental system.

Just sayin’.

7

I disagree. There’s not really much difference between libertarianism and authoritarianism in practical terms, since if the government won’t help you then most people will be under the thumb of people and organizations that are far wealthier and more powerful than they are. Libertarians have no problems with oppression and exploitation, as long as the government isn’t the one doing it.

And I see a LOT of hatred and disdain for the unfortunate from the libertarians. I see them talk about how they are superior, about how only stupid people need regulations to protect them from things like poisonous foods and medicine; they’d know better. And if hundred or thousands die in the process of economic mechanisms discouraging a company from producing bad products; well, those people were all stupid and expendable.

8

Many of us on the left are more concerned with infrastructure than just wealth redistribution. We want more investments in transportation, energy, science, education, health, etc. And we want them because we feel that those investments will make US businesses more globally competitive.

Anyway, what is your argument about the safety net being better being smaller? In my experience, there are 2 groups that benefit heavily from wealth redistribution. The elderly and the poor/disadvantaged.

The elderly have medicare and social security (at over a trillion a year, about 1.2 trillion is spent on those 2 programs). The poor/disadvantaged have unemployment insurance, SCHIP, medicaid, AFDC, tax credits, etc.

The majority of our countries non-military spending and non-education spending goes to the poor and the elderly.

It seems most of our wealth redistribution falls into 3 categories

  1. Health care (for seniors and the poor)
  2. Pensions for the elderly
  3. Assistance for those in transient need (AFDC, unemployment insurance)

Personally, I don’t see how or why we should cut those programs.

9

Der Trihs, please link the thread where I said “the weak shall perish” or whatever. It is very disingenuous of you to not present that whole discussion. in that thread, I said that I would support some short-term and targeted programs for poor people, but do not support long-term wealth redistribution. I said that some people would perish only to mean that it is not the government’s role to put every person on life support–some “weak” people are going to perish just because they will sit there and do nothing until they die (ie, commit suicide).

I’ll answer the rest of your post later (at my stop).

10

Yeah, this is a turnoff I have too. Libertarians generally seem fairly ok with corporate hegemony, whereas liberals feel you need strong public regulations to protect the public from the influence of plutocrats.

What I don’t get is why libertarians opposed the civil rights legislation. Didn’t they feel that they were supporting states that used their legal powers to oppress people and deny them many basic rights? Most libertarians I know are comfortable with gay rights, but I’m not sure why libertarians like Goldwater gave de facto approval of the unconstitutional human rights abuses in the south in the 60s.

Its the just world phenomenon

I notice it a lot from people I know in person. They want to believe the world is fundamentally just and that they (because of their perceived above average decision making, work ethic, fiscal restraint, etc) are above all ‘those’ people who make bad decisions and that as long as they remain above average in their behavior and thinking, they will be safe. Until reality dick slaps them across the face. However I don’t think it is strictly a right wing phenomena. I think everyone engages in that fallacy from time to time.

11

I guess when you constantly bitch about poor people wanting their money and demanding help programs they do not deserve, the idea becomes clear. It is not pulled out of thin air. Rover starts threads and participates in any discussion that he imagines will result in the poor getting tax money The rich get boatloads of tax money and exemptions . That is good because he identifies with them. He does not identify with the poor. They are not like him. They should just go away. Stop Medicare, he does not need it. Stop trying to cover the poor with health care they do not deserve it. End public schools, he can afford private. End social security, he has figured out he can go without it. People who are not like him should get their own country. This one is his.

12

I agree with magellan01. I am a fiscal conservative myself and I don’t really understand that notion either. Warning: Broad brush. I live in Massachusetts where we have more than our fair share of the Ivory Tower left-wing types. From what I have learned over time is that liberals really want the poor to just disappear out of sight and want other people to spend the money to make that happen as long as it is NIMBY.

Fiscal conservatives and even religious conservatives tend to take a more grass-roots approach that encourages family members to take primary responsibility for their loved ones. Charities are the next step and those include churches and foundations set up to help people get back on their feet and make sure they are healthy. Government assistance is the last resort but some people really do need it.

I have never heard anyone say that the people that are truly disabled shouldn’t have some help from somewhere even when it comes to critical medical care. People shouldn’t die from starvation or lack of shelter in the U.S. and no one advocates such a thing. What fiscal conservatives do advocate is that people do not become complacent on government help and don’t do anything to better themselves. I know from personal experience that it is easy to slip into that mindset when you are living on unemployment checks and, if that type of thing goes on for years, it simply isn’t healthy and can carry down through the generations.

1970’s style housing projects in the U.S. were a terrible thing and lead to criminality and complacency even for those that would probably do well at a job that gives them some responsibility and a sense of respect. Warehousing people out of sight is extremely irresponsible government policy and some European countries like France are especially guilty of that to this day with the predictable riots and car burnings that go with that.

You can’t just have a bunch of left-wingers (who have never been very organized to begin with at least in the U.S.) have some debates on a topic and legislate these issues away by throwing money at the problem to make it go away. Most people have friends or family members that were down and out at one time and understand the problem. Not to be cliche, but fiscal conservatives believe that people should just do the absolute best that they can and be pushed in that direction and not be encouraged to stagnate at a pitiful level.

13

As an obervation, what differentiates the Right from the Libertarians and provokes the contempt for the former but not the latter is an impression, valid or not, that the Right as a group favor legislation (or the repeal of other legislation) that will have the effect of benefitting the well=-to-do at the expense of the poor.

For example, deregulation of public utility companies: few poor people own stock in such businesses; many well-to-do people do, particularly those with interest in a low-risk steady-income investment. The net effect of such deregulaton, considering the ‘natural monopoly’ nature of such businesses, is to raise utility rates – which automatically impact virtually all the poor along with everyone else, and disproportionately impact the poor when considered as a percentage of available income. On the other hand, the wel-to-do investors benefit, as the net profit increases.

Government is, according to much of the Right, expected to spend money on certain essentials, particularly the national defense – which, coincidentally, does not translate to higher income for the enlisted man, many of whom are poor or from poor backgrounds, but instead is expended on new weapons, weapons systems, and base (re)construction – the money from which tends to go to a few large corporations.

I once made a case that Dick Cheney was a fascist – not as an insult, but as an accurate descriptor of his political philosophy, which contemplates an alliance of government, a few large businesses, and the military, for the mutual benefit of each – the dictionary definition of fascism as an economic-political philosophy.

This is not said to tar with a broad brush – many fiscal conservatives are as opposed to heavy defense spending as heavy welfare spending – but to identify what I see as the psychological impact of policies the Right tends to advance, or is at least perceived as advancing.

14

No, that’s not what it means. Fiscal conservatives, as such, are hostile only to deficit spending, not necessarily to high taxes or a big government budget or an expansive role for government.

15

That is a straw man argument though. I support unemployment insurance. Do I support giving the unemployed $2000 a month for 5 years straight, and giving it to people even if they quit their jobs? No. Does that mean I hate poor people? No.

Again, that is a straw man argument.

As a liberal, I do not ‘blame’ rich people (except when they collapse the global economy due to reckless deregulation of the financial industry) for my problems.

However, in the last 30 years virtually all the economic growth and virtually all the tax benefits have gone to the wealthy.

The top 1% used to make 9% of the national GDP in 78, now they make 24%

At the same time virtually all the taxes the wealthy pay were cut in half. The income tax rate was cut from 70% to 35%. The dividend and capital gains tax were cut in half. There are efforts to eliminate the estate tax. The corporate tax rate has been cut.

This is a problem, and even some conservatives are starting to see it as a problem. There is a finite amount of GDP in the US, and if we are giving 70% of GDP to the wealthiest 1/10 of the country, then you can’t expect the other 90% of the public to pay for health care, education and housing on such a small % of income.

Basically you are saying ‘liberals feel you should blame rich people for your problems’. What liberals like myself are really saying is ‘a system where all the income growth and tax benefits go to the wealthy, and where real estate, education and housing grow in cost 2-3x faster than wages is not sustainable’. Its not the same thing.

What is going to happen after another 20 years of health care and college costs going up by 6-10% a year while wages go up by 2-3% a year? It isn’t sustainable.

16

It’s not a strictly a right wing phenomena; but the right tends to treat it as dogma and actively pushes the idea.

I also have the personal theory that this is one reason why you see so many extremists on the right who think that immigrants/blacks/Jews/the Illuminati/the One World Government are the reason they don’t have jobs, or as a good a job as they’d like. They don’t want to consider themselves stupid or evil; but they are attached enough to Just World Fallacy dogma that “bad luck” and “the system is rigged for the benefit of the wealthy” aren’t acceptable as a explanations. So, if they aren’t doing well it has to be because “they” are at fault. If chance isn’t allowed as an explanation, someone has to be at fault, and if the obvious beneficiaries are unacceptable targets, then it has to be someone who is secretly behind it all.

17

Because of the hateful imagery that comes from conservatives: attacks on government programs to help the poor often take the form of attacks on the recipients themselves (e.g., “welfare queens”). It’s difficult to appreciate a nuanced, principled stand on smaller government when it’s hiding behind campaign ads aimed at making voters angry that their tax dollars are paying for lobster and illegitimate children conceived for no other reason than to increase the size of one’s monthly cheque.

It’s like the debate on illegal immigration and accusations of racism: enforcement of immigration laws is not, in itself, a bad thing, but those calling for stricter enforcement often resort to quasi-racist (or not so quasi) imagery about the brown hordes swamping the south, about the disappearance of white culture, about the threat of Azatlan.

When the debate is framed in terms of an evil other that must be defeated (lazy poor people, in this case), it’s hard not to see the principled arguments about how “less is more” in government as just a high-minded veneer on “fuck you, I got mine”.

18

Well I’m a moderate and I think both conservatives and liberals are fairly idiotic.

I’ve had lots of discussions with my liberal neighbor who is very interested in protecting poor people from their own mistakes. Like she wants to make payday loans illegal because they prey on the poor. Even if the people who use them like them, want them to stay around, and if they have no other means of getting a loan. She just can’t accept that what seems like a good deal to them seems like such a rip-off to her. And she wants to protect them from being able to make their own decisions on this issue.

And my conservative neighbors is constantly wanting to shoot himself in the foot by cutting off services that seem expensive in the short run but actually save money in the long run. He really wants to deny an education to the children of illegal immigrants. Even if this would result in a large group of uneducated, unemployable folks running around committing crimes and vandalizing the city. More money would be needed for prisons, gang programs and graffiti abatement.

IMHO.

19

I see this in parenting a lot and it drives me crazy! Her daughter got kidnapped and murdered? It the parents fault because the child was obviously not adequately supervised. However I am a good parents and so such a thing could never happen to my child!

20

If someone argues that smaller government would be good, they are not “hating poor people”
If someone says that they are against taxes being used for inefficient programs they are not “hating poor people”
If someone says that Government should not be involved in health insurance, they are not “hating poor people”

If someone says that Government should not be involved in health insurance, and that giving anything to the poor is the same as “treating them like pets”, and that anyone who loses health insurance should have to rely on charity, and also states that they do not give to charities, when the same person indicates that even if a government program of health would save lives and save money for the country, they are against it on principle…

I think that this would show that this person is at least startlingly indifferent towards poor people.