An interesting
fact of life has become more apparent to me in recent weeks. It has broad implications that somehow
slipped my liberal, big government mindset. The point is this: The
closer one human being is in time and space to another human being in solving a
problem, the more effective the solution will be.
I saw this principal at work
during my involvement with the presidential campaign. The Obama strategy of hands on, grass roots
person to person contact, between volunteer and voter was worth more than any
million dollar commercial. As another
example, following the perfect storm, Sandy, local outreach groups from
churches and the revamped “Occupy Wall Street” organization, operating in New
York City, did more immediate good than the National Red Cross or FEMA. Third, the commentator Nicholas Kristof, told
the audience at his recent lecture at W&J, that Bangladesh does a much
better job of feeding its poor than India with its much more sophisticated governmental
network, by simply empowering women in the local villages. Fourth, I have no
doubt that our local City Mission and half way houses have rehabilitated more
men in Washington County than Pennsylvania’s welfare system. Finally, is the photo that went viral on the
internet, of the NYC police officer, placing a new pair of shoes purchased
minutes before on the feet of a barefoot homeless man.
When
national bureaucracies and middle men are not in charge, the slow motion
reaction in solving a problem appears to magically disappear. I could not help but think about the way we
helped less fortunate people before the new deal in the 30s. Each town of consequence had an orphanage and
charitable organizations to address the neighborhood poor.
The industrial revolution and prevalence of
alcohol brought changes to the system.
At the local level it was obvious that booze was a major culprit and
temperance organizations flourished. The
town fathers believed that there would be fewer jails, fewer orphans and fewer
broken homes if alcohol were abolished.
To address the crisis they were willing to give up local control. Unfortunately the national solution, which
created bath tub gin, was worse than the problem. After this experiment, instead of returning
to and funding local self help, we began to nationalize the solutions to most
of society’s ills.
It
is difficult for my liberal bones to admit that big government is often not the
best solution for local disasters, personal hardships and inequalities. While I am not advocating that fewer dollars
be spent, it seems a compromise is in order.
Why not identify local groups, faith based or otherwise, in a national
register. These proven “social first
responders” could be funded immediately, without red tape, when disaster
strikes or a local social problem is identified. Let the federal programs solve what they do
best, systemic problems that cross local and state boarders and infrastructure
too vast for the locals to resolve.
Of
course there are problems with this proposal.
The federal government and the courts are concerned with equal access to
funds and with regulations to see that the dispersals are made within
predetermined parameters. For this
system to work, strict rules would have to take a back seat to expediency and
practical local wisdom. Sometimes, “one
bare foot at a time” is a better approach than a thousand pair of shoes locked
up in a warehouse. This is certainly a new (old) paradigm for helping those
people who need it most.
No comments:
Post a Comment