Freedom in One Lesson

36.

Coping with Poverty

Exit polls revealed an interesting aspect of the 2012 presidential election. Mitt Romney was preferred by substantial margins among those who most wanted someone who “shares my values,” “is a strong leader,” or “has a vision for the future.” He was not preferred, however, by 81 percent of people who wanted someone who “cares about people like me.”

That last category determined the election and reflected the thrust of President Obama’s campaign, which demonized Governor Romney and his supporters as caring only about themselves and the rich and unfairly burdening others. But it also revealed an electoral weakness for anyone who advocates for smaller government: demagogues can easily portray support for such a position as a selfish threat to government benefits that depend on others being forced to pay for them. This makes any rollback in “coercive charity” almost politically impossible. Yet, ironically, the result of such successful demagoguery is to harm those it supposedly helps, because more freedom offers the best hope for those struggling economically.

While the use of this political tactic has increased recently, it was established long ago. In fact, one of the most insightful analyses is nearly as old as the War on Poverty—namely, Leonard Read’s “Coping with Poverty,” from his 1968 book Accent on the Right (Read 1968), which emphasizes the frequent failure of those who favor liberty and makes clear that liberty is the source of the greatest possible benefits to the poor and other market participants.

Millions of Americans . . . [labor] under the misapprehension that the philosophy of individual liberty is little more than an intellectual apology for entrenched wealth, a rationale for persons who have no concern for those below their own dollar stations. . . .

. . . So firmly embedded in [the minds of those who stand for liberty] is the fact that liberty is the poor man’s best ally that we mistakenly assume a like awareness on the part of everyone else. Failing to identify the free market and related institutions with kindly sentiments and noble objectives—such as a better life for the poor—we fumble the ball, so to speak, allowing the opposition to run with it—and play to the grandstand!

The era of free and willing exchange extends, roughly, over [America’s history]. In no other period of history have so many raised themselves out of poverty. Why, then, are those of us who champion free and willing exchange—the only antipoverty device in man’s possession—so seldom credited with relieving the poor man of his burden? Quite frankly, it is because such relief is not the major end we have in view. Freedom and wide open opportunity for all is the prime objective. But—and this is the point—the fastest possible elimination of poverty is one of the inescapable byproducts of this liberty. . . . And this effect cannot be achieved in any other way.

Unfortunately, when we keep an eye on freedom as our prime objective, we tend to omit any mention of relief from poverty as its by-product . . . a serious oversight. . . . The authoritarians grapple on to it and assume the role of the poor man’s champion, all because we have failed to identify the politically attractive by-product of freedom with freedom itself.

Little attention need be given here to the empty promises of political authoritarians. It is as much of a delusion to expect that government can end poverty as to expect that the local policeman can make us rich. Government has nothing at all on hand to dispense except what it has garnisheed from taxpayers—what it forcibly subtracts from private ownership. This, obviously, is a dead-end road: savings are drained from those who have, and consumed by those who have not—the opposite of capital formation on which productivity rests and on which relief from poverty depends. It is all political give-away—redistribution— with absolutely nothing formative, productive, or creative about it. . . .

But regardless of how faulty their theories, the political authoritarians proclaim themselves the champions of the poor. They have fastened onto the poverty banner, and placed themselves in the vanguard of “the down-trodden.” They have gained a considerable following because many people wish to believe in these easy promises and the champions of freedom, failing to make their own case, have unwittingly tossed the baton to the authoritarians.

. . . The popular view [is] that free market practices generally favor those of affluence and generally neglect the interests of the poor. But this notion . . . is wholly superficial, and false.

When champions of the free market recognize and correct this erroneous concept, they will have found the key to explain how freedom best serves the interests of all—especially the poor. Not until that is done may the poor be expected to look to liberty for their material wellbeing.

Here is the overlooked fact: The unprecedented practice of freedom in our country has, one might say, catapulted many millions of “the masses”—including you and me—into a state of affluence previously unknown to history. . . .

The reason that the free market, private ownership, limited government philosophy is popularly regarded as an apology for affluence rather than as a boon for the poor is that its practice has made possible such affluence. If we note only the accomplishment, as if it were automatically due us, we lose all sight of its genesis: liberty!

The alleviation of poverty is a by-product—a lifesaving benefit—along man’s way toward the higher ideal of liberty. The benefit springs from no other source than liberty. . . .

. . . Restore and preserve the practice of free market, private ownership, limited government principles; and one of the by-products will be as much removal of poverty as possible.

Doubtless, we have been negligent about accenting this important dividend of liberty: it is a boon to the poor. However, if we set the alleviation of poverty as our highest goal we shall, by thus lowering our sights, not only spread poverty but lose our freedom.

Leonard Read recognizes that economic liberty gives all members of society the best possible incentives to indirectly benefit themselves by developing and applying whatever resources and skills they possess—great or small—to benefit others. In short, the pursuit of liberty is the most effective means of helping the poor economically because it is the most effective means of helping everyone economically. But his primary concern is with how redistribution enforced by government undermines the growth of its recipients. The most effective means of achieving that growth is the pursuit of freedom.