Close window | View original article
Your humble correspondent took a much-needed vacation last week; among its highlights was a trip to a safari nature park.
This was no ordinary zoo; there were no cages, moats, or iron bars. Yes, the compound was surrounded by a high fence that ran for many miles, but within that rather large area the animals ran freely in their own extensive paddocks. Instead of stark cement "cliffs," there was savanna, healthy trees, natural rocks, and even the occasional pond and stream complete with reeds and smaller edible wildlife.
Within this idyll lived a group of clearly well-fed, healthy, and contented beasts of all sorts. Free to wander as they would, some would come up to your car in curiosity; others seeking privacy went off into the trees or beyond a rise.
All seemed to be in the peak of good health; all showed glistening fur and healthy skin due to health care provided at no cost to them. Their young romped and frolicked under the watchful eyes of parents and relations. It was the wild, yet without hunger, predators, disease...
Or purpose, challenge, goals, or anything resembling Darwin's struggle for life. Watching these magnificent creatures who had nothing to do, I couldn't help but think of the Euro-style social-democratic welfare statism our elites intend for us.
The rich West has long since conquered hunger and poverty by any reasonable definition. Between the generosity of private charities and government programs of all types, the only reason for any American or Western European to be hungry is their own fecklessness and lack of sufficient initiative to go to the soup kitchen or welfare office for aid.
In the main, modern welfare programs provide shelter, clothing, and basic medical care as well. Most of the modern "homeless" are actually mentally disturbed people whose inner demons drive them out of the shelters available to them, or worse, drive them to destroy those homes; what they need is not merely a roof, but medications they have been granted a constitutional right of refusal to take.
Life as a welfare mother is hardly Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, but it's quite sufficient to keep body together. The current drumbeat of complaint from the Left has to do with fat welfare recipients, not starving ones.
What, though, about the human spirit? Like the animals in the nature park, welfare people have their physical needs provided for. Unlike most animals, though, they are sufficiently intelligent to know that they have earned none of it, deserve none of it, and truly own none of it by any moral right.
As people, they are leeches; as citizens, they are more akin to subjects who live at the whim of the bureaucracy; as persons, they're more like irresponsible children than adults; in the grand sweep of history, they are the most abject of useless failures. Life has no meaning beyond unthinking breeding and the pursuit of bureaucratic largess.
It was in the eyes of the bears, I think, that I saw some glimmer of understanding. There were a great many bears, playing around in a desultory way. When we came by, they gathered round to "perform" for treats; when we left, they went back to lounging. The only real energy shown was by two smallish cubs. Their every need was provided for... and yet somehow, they knew they'd lost something essential to being a bear.
So it is with humankind. Yes, it is possible to wrap people in a thick padding of government programs and welfare checks, protecting them from the worst fates of starvation and exposure. By doing so, we also remove all impetus to make something of themselves.
There will always be a few people who lack any internal drive for success or advancement. The wider the "safety" net, though, and the more we commit to making sure that bad luck never befalls anyone and struggles for survival are a thing of the past, the less human greatness we will see. For what is the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat?
The bears in the park will never know the threat of a hunter, of a larger angry bear, or of an empty belly from a too-long winter. They will also never know the thrill of escape, the joy of winning a fight, or the relief of finding that first fruit of spring. For animals, that may be OK; they have no souls, and they might be able to survive a life free of challenges indefinitely.
As a wise philosopher said, "welfare robs the poor of the spur of their poverty." Do we really want to create a world in which people have no need for souls, goals, future planning, or anything that makes them human?