Response to an Idiotic Editorial

This is a rebuttal I wrote in response to a horribly prejudiced and idiotic editorial in Saturdays Free Press. The original editorial can be referenced by clicking the linked title of this post

In Saturday’s editorial in the Free Press “Willpower the best weapon against poverty” Dallas Hansen insists that eliminating welfare for “able-bodied workers” is the key to getting poor people to realize the value of their time and efforts through employment. Though his ideas are valid to a certain extent much of Mr. Hansen’s argument is grossly unfair, extremely arrogant and terribly naive.

Mr. Hansen seems to believe that every “able-bodied” person is born with the same amount of will, the same ability to conform, and the same capability to overcome mental and physical illness in pursuit of an honourable, workaday living. He mentions the time he went to a temp agency on a lark and did eight hours of day-labour. It was easy, he claims, and “fun”, to get hired on to do a day of hauling trash. He is certain that, had he chosen to, he could have come back the next day and found an equally amusing job to do for minimal wages.

Sadly there are many who’s circumstances prevent them from enjoying the benefits of our glorious Capitalist system, even with a physically capable body and an abundance of low paying jobs.

For one thing mental illness is a gigantic and often unrecognized barrier to attaining the benefits our society can bestow. This illness may not manifest itself as something we recognize and/or sympathize with. Whereas I doubt Mr. Hansen could reasonably object to a schizophrenic or severely mentally handicapped individual receiving aid from the state I wonder if he realizes that chronic depression and a myriad of other undiagnosed problems are often to blame for an inability to thrive in our miracle economy. Hard work and pride in a job well done can be a tonic for some people suffering these maladies, but they do little in the long run to alleviate the root causes of mental illness.

As for the ever-present evils of substance abuse Mr. Hansen states that the solution is to simply stop drinking and doing drugs. This is a startlingly ignorant position, given that even the wealthiest and most educated people in our society can become entrapped in addiction and ruin their lives as a result. Among those who suffer from drug and alcohol dependence are many whose own families have disowned them, who will never be considered reliable or capable of holding down a job, who cannot afford the uninsured medical and/or psychiatric help they need to get clean. They are caught in a downward spiral with no rope to hold on to.

Mr. Hansen also makes the point that those receiving welfare waste their cheques on pre-packaged low-nutrition food. As savvy as he is he does not perceive the lure of convenience food, and does not seem to realize that an undereducated member of society is much more vulnerable to the manipulation of those who offer bad choices (tobacco companies, fast-food establishments, etc.) than someone who has had the advantages. Furthermore, he does not stop to consider the very real possibility that the welfare mother who feeds her child Pizza Pops may not have the basic cooking skills required to prepare a more economical and healthy meal.

Finally, and perhaps most objectionably, Mr. Hansen implies that it is in the best interest of social workers and agencies who support the impoverished to maintain the welfare rolls. This is patently absurd. Those who work in social services do not do so because it is a comfortable living. They take on highly emotionally draining work and visit desolation daily. How dare Mr. Hansen accuse them of cashing in on pity. I am betting that there are far more social servants of all stripes who would prefer a lighter case load, and more happy endings to a fatter cheque as a result of growing despondency.

There can be no doubt that a certain number of welfare cases would be better served by doing as Mr. Hansen suggests, which is finding pride and accomplishment through daily labour. But his overly-simplistic notions on the matter are discriminatory, insulting, and ultimately do a great disservice to our nation’s poor and those who wish to help them in their struggle to escape destitution and despair.