Being on one’s own

A fundamental difference of opinion was unearthed this week with the following comment “then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own’”. A campaigning President was appealing to fundraisers by warning those in attendance that the consequences of a failed re-election would include self-reliance ushered in by his caricatured opponents. Perhaps there’s something more in this statement, something under the surface that is profound and enlightening. That finding any wisdom in such a statement requires mental gymnastics to include a willing detachment from the English language reassures its dissemination at face value. It is what it is and means exactly what is meant by stringing those words together.

People are different. Responsible people often find different paths to self reliance. The more free-spirited types might work temporary technician or landscaping type positions to fund their wants and needs, preferring to live by their own schedule. Others might wake at the same time every morning and head to the same place for the same amount of time and develop a taste for coffee while being perfectly content in a desk job. There’s no right or wrong to either path. The free spirit needs no government intervention as they figured out on their own how to provide for their desires. And the desk worker realizes that the more government intervenes supposedly on their behalf, their employer may be more reticent to offer advancement opportunities because of increased risk and their healthcare plan may be more costly because of mandates irrelevant to them but that must be covered anyway. Both do what they have to in order to live the lifestyle they decide is best for themselves.

It used to be a definition of adulthood, being self-reliant. For almost ninety years the United States government ushered in reforms meant to create a safety-net, a way for those who couldn’t do for themselves to survive or to provide temporary relief for those finding themselves in unfortunate circumstances. Over the years the definitions of unfortunate circumstances and those who couldn’t do for themselves has broadened significantly. Political correctness has rendered it a thought crime to question the validity of benefits to those seemingly capable. Every year politicians campaign as champions of the less fortunate who seem to grow in proportion with the number of programs meant to help.

This never ending spiral illustrates a key difference between liberals and conservatives. It is nice and emotionally satisfying to provide something to someone in want or need. But, eliminating the cost for a certain group of people doesn’t make it free. Someone has to bear that cost and eliminating that cost for some will encourage more to become part of that some or to remain part of that some by hindering self reliance. Also hindered will be those forced to pay those costs by taxation. Liberals choose the simpler path of offering aid with no strings attached. Conservatives choose the more difficult path of encouraging people to become self sufficient and aim to help them achieve it. There exist the truly needy who can’t help themselves and for them we should maintain the safety net, if it were to include only them it would be much smaller than it is today. Simply put, the government should let you be on your own.