Rosen: True measure of society

Friday, April 27, 2007

A core belief of liberals - or "progressives," their moniker of preference these days - goes something like this: "The true measure of a society is how it treats the weak and needy." This is a superficially noble and nice-sounding platitude. Politically, it's the foundational justification for the cradle-to-grave welfare state and its perpetual expansion. It's heard so often, I suspect many people who have never paused to critically appraise its validity simply accept this bromide as a truism.

I don't. It's simplistic and absurdly narrow. You might say that one measure of a society is how it treats those in need. Fair enough. But that's hardly the only "true measure" of a society's values, merits or contribution to the world - or even its most significant.

The promise of Marxism, after all, is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." While this might sound seductive to the collectivists among us, its incompatibility with human nature dooms it to failure as a system of political economy. We've seen the destructive results of this ideology, inevitably leading to totalitarianism and bankruptcy in places like the former Soviet Union, North Korea and Cuba. Even the vaunted Israeli kibbutz, a voluntary, altruistic commune, is rapidly sliding into oblivion.

Rather, there are manifold measures of one society's relative greatness compared to all others in the real world - as opposed to nonexistent utopian visions in some imagined world. These include, but are not limited to, its systems of governance, justice, law and commerce. Its commitment to freedom and individual rights. Its achievements in science, engineering, industry, technology and exploration. Its military strength. Religion and philosophy. Literature, art, music, culture. Medicine and health. Education, scholarship, intellectualism. Economic growth, wealth creation and standard of living. All of these things, and more, are measures of a society.

Humanitarianism and philanthropy, of course, have their place in any good or great society, but they're not the exclusive province of government, funded by taxation. The state is not society; it's a subset of society. We are more than our government. Who says government handouts are nobler than private charity?

And while compassion is commendable, it, too, is not the one "true measure" of an individual. Mother Teresa did good work in her specialty. But so did Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein and Dwight Eisenhower in theirs. We could debate which of these people made the greatest contribution to their societies and the world.

As Tevye mused in Fiddler on the Roof, there may be no shame in being poor, but it is no great honor, either. Poverty is nothing to be revered. The poor want it least of all. That's why President Lyndon Johnson declared war against poverty in 1964. Democrats and Republicans alike have vowed to eradicate what passes for poverty in America, where the poor live better than most of the world's population.

For all their well-intentioned efforts, it hasn't been social workers who have elevated the poor; their job is to minister to them. Ironically, many social programs create dependency, perpetuating poverty. In fact, it's been capitalists, entrepreneurs and technicians driving productivity and creating jobs that have produced a rising economic tide lifting even the poorest of boats. It should be obvious that a wealthy society is best able to tend to the welfare of those in need. Compassion is limited to the fruits of success.

Perhaps a truer measure of a society is to observe which way the guns are pointed: inward to keep captive subjects from escaping (e.g., the old Berlin Wall) or outward to keep too many hopeful immigrants from entering (U.S. border security - if we had any). That's the objective market test. And by that standard, America must truly be the greatest society of all.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.