April Freeman Banner 2014


Can Politicians Really Care?

Care from politicians amounts to little more than a showing of emotion.


What does it mean for a politician to care? “Caring” is, after all, what some people believe politicians ought to be, first and foremost. But what does it mean, to care?

In ordinary English caring means making it one’s own concern when someone needs something. Thus, if I care about the plight of the coloreds and blacks in South Africa, I make their lot my personal concern. I try to help them alleviate their oppressive circumstances. If I care about my neighbor, I make it my business to look into his situation and help him cope with it.

What does caring for someone involve? First, it requires a clear understanding of his specific situation. At least that is what would be required for caring effectively. There is another kind of “caring,” more closely akin to curiosity than to helping. It is more emotional than active. When so many commentators want to test whether political candidates care, do they have in mind the kind of caring that makes a difference? Or does the care involved amount to little more than showing emotion?

In most cases what politicians mean by caring is nothing more than giving some evidence of emotional sympathy with the lot of some bloc of voters. What else could they do? How could even the president of the United States of America actually help people other than those whom he knows personally? That is part of the tragedy of being in the segment of society that is in near-permanent dire straits.

What researchers such as Charles Murray, in his book Losing Ground, have finally brought to our attention is that welfare simply does not work. Not only is it stealing from Peter to subsidize Paul, but welfare is making things worse for the people who need the help most. Government welfare must function in an impersonal fashion. But not knowing the recipients of welfare means not knowing their histories, personalities, characters, and circumstances.

Since human beings are individuals, not simply members of some group—blacks, women, Hispanics, teenagers, the poor, the middle class—they require unique help in even the most familiar situations of need. Even disaster victims seem best aided by voluntary groups. Witness how quickly the Red Cross and various church organizations produced millions of dollars of relief and donated goods in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. The ways in which these and other kinds of help ought to be delivered—when, where, by what means, in what shape, with what words—all would have to be evident to someone who really intends to care effectively, rather than merely show sympathy by introducing bill upon bill in the Senate or the House of Representatives and voting to appropriate other people’s money to pay for them.


November 1992

comments powered by Disqus


* indicates required
Sign me up for...


April 2014

Around the world, people are struggling to throw off authoritarianism, with deeply mixed results. From Egypt to Venezuela, determined people build networks to overthrow their regimes, but as yet we have not learned to live without Leviathan. In this issue, Michael Malice and Gary Dudney discuss their glimpses inside totalitarian regimes, while Sarah Skwire and Michael Nolan look at how totalitarian regimes grind down the individual--and how individuals fight back. Plus, Jeffrey Tucker identifies a strain in libertarianism that, left unchecked, could reduce even our vibrant movement to something that is analogous to the grim aesthetic of architectural brutalism. The struggle for our lives and freedom is a struggle for beauty; it begins inside each of us.
Download Free PDF