The myth of the lazy American
The latest painful wrinkle in the Trayvon Martin case offers a chance to talk about one of the most dismaying myths shaping the political dialogue on the right: The notion that poor and unemployed Americans are lazy grifters.
This week, a Florida fire captain tangled himself up in the scandal surrounding the slaying of the 17-year-old unarmed Martin, by posting an argument on his Facebook page disputing the notion that the teenager was killed because of “racist profiling.”
Instead, this government employee argued that Martin’s parents were to blame. He claimed that urban kids have been let down by “their failed, sh%$tbag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents.”
The facts in this case are starkly at odds with that claim.
Trayvon Martin’s mother — yes, she’s a single mom — also works as a government employee at the Miami-Dade Housing Authority and has been working there for more than two decades.
Her son had some trouble in school, including suspensions, but had no criminal record, and was unarmed when he was killed.
The reason that this one reality-bending rant warrants attention is that it echoes a larger claim simmering among conservatives — including some who post regularly here on the In Box.
The argument goes that poor people, unemployed people and people of color are lazy and that they are largely to blame for America’s economic malaise. If it weren’t for the malingerers and mooches, we’d be fine, or at least in far better shape.
The notion of a large, welfare-dependent underclass has been a theme on the right for decades, typified by the argument that “welfare queens” and illegal immigrants are illegally gaming the system.
Again, the problem with these arguments is that the facts — and these are facts, not opinions — simply don’t bear them out.
Consider again the claims of that Florida firefighter. By his construction, “urban” Americans who are “welfare dependent” are ignorant and pathetic.
But the number of unemployed blacks in the US nearly doubled during the recession, surging from roughly 8% to 16.7%.
Does that mean that the number of lazy black people doubled in a couple of years? Did the near collapse of the US economy coincide with a decision by millions of blacks to quit work and put their feet up and start drawing welfare checks?
Of course not.
What happened is that this recession sideswiped the black community, driving millions into poverty. Desperate? Yes. Pathetic? No way.
Remember, these aren’t the people who tanked the banks or wrecked the housing market. These aren’t the people who handed out the pink slips.
And it should come as no surprise that as soon as some jobs became available again, blacks eagerly went back to work. (The unemployment rate for African Americans is now at 14.1%.)
But the conservative argument about America’s poor isn’t just limited to blacks.
Paul Ryan, chief architect of the Republican Party’s spending plan, has argued that the social safety net in the US is at risk of becoming “a hammock which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.”
Get it? America’s poor are staying at Club Med, coasting in comfort on your tax dollars.
Through the recession, the GOP argued repeatedly that even basic unemployment benefits might be an incentive to workers to stay on the dole and not go back to work.
Reflecting that philosophy, Republicans rolled out a new plan this week to cut social programs sharply. This from Politico:
From food stamps to child tax credits and Social Service block grants, House Republicans began rolling out a new wave of domestic budget cuts Monday but less for debt reduction — and more to sustain future Pentagon spending without relying on new taxes.
But the reality in modern America is that most of our poor are in families where the parents are, in fact, working — sometimes two or three jobs.
Indeed, many of our social welfare programs — from health care to food stamps — go to families that are working as hard as they can. They’re just not earning enough to make ends meet, or to pay for basics like regular doctor visits.
A new Bloomberg editorial points out that a growing number of Americans are working minimum wage jobs, jobs that pay so poorly that it requires 100+ hour work-weeks just to pay for rent.
It’s also becoming clear that many Americans are being forced to take lower-paying jobs and that a low-wage bias is creeping into the economy, as Bloomberg economist Joseph Brusuelas recently put it.
In many cases, minimum-wage work is all that’s available, which may explain why such workers are older and better-educated than they were three decades ago.
Those people aren’t bums. They’re bailing the boat as fast as they can, but the math is against them.
And what about those people who can’t find work? Millions of them were employed just a few years ago, many clinging desperately to the middle class.
Did they suddenly lose their work ethic? Did they suddenly become “pathetic” and “ignorant” loafers? Did they decide that paying their mortgages just wasn’t that big a deal? Of course not.
It may be, of course, that Democratic solutions to poverty and long-term unemployment are the wrong ones.
But one thing is certain: simply relabeling struggling Americans, as sleazebags and dependent bums won’t get the job done.
But Kathy like you suggest morality cannot be brought about by a legislature it comes from places like the home and the church, mosque, or synagogue. The legislature can impose someone else’s idea of morality on me by restricting things but they can’t change my morals by giving me more freedom????
Sure things change sometimes for the better and sometimes for worse and often a mixture of both. I think in the US it is a mixed bag, but blindly accepting that we are always getting better ignores history.
Now in the case of abortion I think technology indeed has made the debate about abortion almost obsolete. Most abortions in the future will not happen in a doctors office or clinic but will simply be a chemical abortion done through a variety of drugs. The focus for those of us who are pro-life must shift to impacting the decision to have an abortion in the first place; because that decision will always rest with the parents regardless of the legality of the procedure or not. We have to create a society where children are treasured and wanted and seen for what they are which is a blessing.
We create that society by having a just society that takes care of its most vulnerable members.
The legislature can impose someone else’s idea of morality on me by restricting things but they can’t change my morals by giving me more freedom????
We place more value on the proper caulking to use for a job or oil for our vehicles. There are standards and methods that we use everyday. Yet, when it comes to morality we make our own standards? There is no standard of measure?
“Someone else’s” idea? Whose? God’s?
Every state constitution is filled with references to God. Doesn’t that say something? It tells me that there was a time when God and religion mattered. A time when society as a whole seemed to have a greater sense of conscience and morality.
Everyone has the freedom to choose – whether we will self-govern ourselves based on conscience through how we relate to God or if every man does what is right in his own eyes.
Question: why is it that almost every teenager today is questioning their sexual preference? Why are a huge percentage of teenagers today experimenting with same sex? Because the door was flung wide open by giving society “freedom”. In time, we may very well see it produced some serious consequences.
Walker, you give situations that occurred but what was the percentage? It’s the same argument that pro-choicers give when they ask, “What about rape?”
So we make abortion legal because there were horrid situations that happened to perhaps a minority that causes a majority to use abortion as a means of birth control since it’s so easily accessible?
We make gay marriage legal because there are same sex attractions and after all these people deserve the right to marry. But then we have the majority of teenagers (power of suggestion?) questioning their sexuality and preference?
Some change is good, such as M.A.D.D. That is a huge benefit to society that I think we all agree on. But some change is bad and while I sincerely and honestly feel badly for unwanted pregnancies and struggling sexual preferences, I don’t think the way to help is to make it legal – especially in these areas of morality that society once understood was immoral.
“Paul, you think all Catholic Charities workers are Conservatives? Ever hear of liberation theology? Conservative they ain’t.”
No, I don’t and that was my point. It was Pete N. that seemed to be suggesting that it is mostly liberals that have this inclination.
From his comment:
“The problem is that it is dramatically, utterly wrong. Almost all of the people who work with the poor and the disadvantaged – teaching them how to fish, as it were, and so much more – are liberal. ”
I just think this is totally inaccurate. It is liberals and conservatives and everyone in between.
“Question: why is it that almost every teenager today is questioning their sexual preference? Why are a huge percentage of teenagers today experimenting with same sex? Because the door was flung wide open by giving society “freedom”. In time, we may very well see it produced some serious consequences.”
What in the world are you talking about?
If you don’t like “freedom” I am afraid you may be living in the wrong place??
“Every state constitution is filled with references to God. Doesn’t that say something? It tells me that there was a time when God and religion mattered.”
No Kathy, it doesn’t. Many of those same constitutions that were filled with references to God also enshrined slavery and disenfranchised women. What that tells me is that the folks who wrote those references to God into their constitutions were using their supposed belief in God to justify doing whatever they damned well pleased. It does not tell me that the values of Jesus were enshrined in their constitutions or in their hearts.
Sorry, Paul, you seemed to be saying that all those Catholic charities workers were conservatives. It would be interesting to know the breakdown. Though you’re right when you say that a simple liberal/conservative split doesn’t do justice to the range of opinions out there.
Walker, For sure many of them are what we would define as “liberal”.
Paul, the US government put their stamp of approval on abortion and gay marriage. You don’t see the connection with people getting more abortions and questioning their sexual preference? Are you kidding me? It’s easy access.
I believe in freedom. But true freedom comes from truth – the truth will set you free.
Walker, that’s your opinion. You can’t tell me that the wording in the state constitutions are not a reflection of the era. Why is it with Liberals, secularists, humanists, et al, if something “religious” isn’t perfect, it gets thrown out?
Kathy, First of all why do you try and lump everyone into one pile. There are plenty of liberals that are also devoutly religious. This is blog is a sample of a few squeaky wheels (me and you included).
Freedom is freedom.
Freedom to make the wrong decision or the wrong choice as determined by someone else (or even by the same person).
The government has no place in the bedroom. Their are not more gay people because it is legal that is a crazy.
I assume that you think that there should have been a government regulation that said that Adam could not eat the forbidden fruit?? In the religion that I was raised in god gave us free will. That may be why you see many references to god used by the founding fathers.
Kathy, you asked. “Doesn’t that say something? It tells me that there was a time when God and religion mattered.”
I answered. Then you kindly inform my that my answer was just my opinion? Gee, thanks.
Then you say “You can’t tell me that the wording in the state constitutions are not a reflection of the era.”
I’m sure you’re right– I can’t tell you anything. But I will say to you that I am not impressed with mentions of god in state constitutions that also include state sanctioned brutality against a class of people. Sorry, that goes beyond “not getting it perfect”. It may fill you with warm, fuzzy feelings. It leaves me cold.
What that tells me is that the folks who wrote those references to God into their constitutions were using their supposed belief in God to justify doing whatever they damned well pleased.
This is specifically what I was referring to about your opinion. I think it’s a stretch to say this.
Kathy, tell me, how do you think they reconciled their belief in the teachings of Jesus with the practice of slavery?
Kathy, First of all why do you try and lump everyone into one pile. There are plenty of liberals that are also devoutly religious. This is blog is a sample of a few squeaky wheels (me and you included).
Did I have to specifically say atheist liberals? I am honestly tired of weighing every word in order to be understood. Yet, I have found time after time that I’ve been challenged because of one word said or omitted. Perhaps this is just the nature of forums.
I am all for free will. I don’t believe there should be a government regulation for or against when it comes to moral issues. My references to God and the Founders was to establish the greater conscience and morality that seems obvious to me.
Why was abortion illegal pre Roe v Wade? Was it because it was understood that it was wrong?
“I don’t believe there should be a government regulation for or against when it comes to moral issues.”
“Why was abortion illegal pre Roe v Wade? Was it because it was understood that it was wrong?”
Say what?! Are you in favor of governmental regulation of moral issues or not? You seem to be trying to have it both ways here.
Walker, as you know my world view is Biblical. However, believe it or not, I am very open-minded and value learning other viewpoints. That said, I am not the type to jump on a bandwagon believing everything – even within Christianity.
This article may help shed some light: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=120
I am not defending, just bringing to the table some information. You decide.
That said, nothing and no one is 100% in this world. Some of the most well known men in the Bible had error in their life, but were still used by God.
Walker, I am for a society that self governs through their conscience of right and wrong in terms of moral issues. I don’t think I’ve ever stated that the federal government should be involved at all – even around 1900 when it became illegal in almost all the states.
I asked why it was illegal before Roe v Wade because I have been trying to establish a more conscience driven, moral society in previous eras as compared to today.
Hi Kathy,
Abortion was legal prior to RvW. The states could decide, NYS of course was out in front embracing abortion, so abortion was legal in NYS prior to RvW.
RvW forced states to allow abortion which is why it is a problem; it didn’t make abortion legal, it made it a right, regardless of how the local communities felt.
But anyway, abortion debate is pretty boring and takes over the whole discussion; the fact is it is here legally to stay, I think we should focus on teaching people and educating people about fetal development and also helping people who have children support those children.
Thanks for the info Mervel!
“Paul, the US government put their stamp of approval on abortion and gay marriage.”
That reply is just isn’t very accurate. The government did not place their “stamp of approval” on abortion. I am opposed to abortion except when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape and incest. But what a woman does with her body is none of anyone’s business. Contraception use reduces abortions but the religious are against that also (although hypocritically because I’m sure many religious women use contraception). As for gay marriage, again, it is an issue of equality and fairness.
“Question: why is it that almost every teenager today is questioning their sexual preference?
Really? Where is the evidence for that statement?
How about a little bit of that vaunted Christian love (the New Testament kind, not the Hebrew bible)?
You know Kathy at one time I really believed that there was a more “moral” era, but after an honest study, without projecting what I wished were true, and really looking at the evidence I don’t believe it. I think some things were better at different periods in our history and some things were much worse. If you look at things like violence, murder in particular which we can measure we were less violent in the 1950’s, we murdered less. That is a pretty direct judgement on today. But go back further say to the 19th century and we had murder all over the place. We committed genocide on the Native peoples and also European’s killed each other at high rates. Even today although still higher than in the 1950’s our murder rates are falling and are at lows compared to the 1980’s and 90’s.
So I don’t know we can go back and try to look analytically and it just does not stack up.
I do think we may be entering a period when people might finally reject this insane materialism, when we can see the emptiness of that as a life goal.
“Question: why is it that almost every teenager today is questioning their sexual preference?
Really? Where is the evidence for that statement?
Talk to any school counselor.
Not sure this has to be spelled out, either. If it’s an option presented and more accessible, what do you think? Experimentation is huge right now.
Mervel, I understand your point. I know, too, that murder, rape, incest, aboriton – all of it went on since the beginning of time.
And I’m not saying that church going people were immune; because we do know there are some horrid stories that went on behind closed doors.
But “Merry Christmas” wasn’t offensive. Prayer was part of school and government. “In God We Trust” is on our currency. That tells me something.
Our country is becoming more and more secular. Should it concern those of us who think we should protect what was obviously commonplace? I know we are a melting pot, but it seems to me those who do not adhere to the above should not make their demands for change but yield to keeping God center.
Tolerance works both ways.
“…it seems to me those who do not adhere to the above should not make their demands for change but yield to keeping God center.”
Why?
“…why is it that almost every teenager today is questioning their sexual preference?”
“Our country is becoming more and more secular. Should it concern those of us who think we should protect what was obviously commonplace? I know we are a melting pot, but it seems to me those who do not adhere to the above should not make their demands for change but yield to keeping God center.”
Ah yes, if the US could only be a 100% God loving, anti-gay country. Oh wait, there are countries like that such as Iran and Afganistan.
Why you ask? Didn’t I make the point that God was center? If his name is on the currency, engraved in the Capitol, congressional prayer, etc., etc…
How is it that secularists, atheists, or whoever can come along and demand it be stopped?
Mervel, you really strain at trying to make a point with this. That’s not what I am implying.
Oops, sorry. That comment was for myown.