02.15
Continuing where we left off last time:
3. The state turns misfortune into a political asset.
A third index is seen in the erection of poverty and mendicancy into a permanent political asset.
Two years ago, many of our people were in hard straits; to some extent, no doubt, through no fault
of their own, though it is now clear that in the popular view of their case, as well as in the political
view, the line between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor was not distinctly drawn.
Popular feeling ran high at the time, and the prevailing wretchedness was regarded with
undiscriminating emotion, as evidence of some general wrong done upon its victims by society at
large, rather than as the natural penalty of greed, folly or actual misdoings; which in large part it
was. The State, always instinctively “turning every contingency into a resource” for accelerating the
conversion of social power into State power, was quick to take advantage of this state of mind. All
that was needed to organize these unfortunates into an invaluable political property was to declare
the doctrine that the State owes all its citizens a living; and this was accordingly done. It
immediately precipitated an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, an enormous resource for
strengthening the State at the expense of society.
Remember that this was written in 1935. So, when he says, “Two years ago, many of our people were in hard straits,” he means the Great Depression. He is talking here of the appropriation, by the state, of an actual state of being. They actually began, around that time, turning poverty and misfortune into political footballs to be tossed about for the purpose of vote buying and political power grabs. This, at once, has the effect of putting the lie to the notion that the state cares anything about ending poverty. Of course they don’t. Why would they want to end such a potent political tool as that. It would be like banning abortion. They never will, because as soon as they do, they would lose that issue as a way to buy votes. It’s much more valuable as a tool. Morality be damned.
This is also, so far as I’m concerned, the major flaw in the thinking that drives much of the “social gospel” movement’s leadership. I’ve posted on this before. Many, or them seek to expropriate the power of the state and apply it toward social ills, such as poverty. This can’t work, because of what we just covered. The state has no desire to end poverty. But, it does have an interest in making you think it does. That’s the whole game in and of itself. So, trying to get the right guy in office, or protesting, or whatever is just a complete waste of time. By definition, it can’t work. And, also by definition, you will always be made to think that it is working. So unless you enjoy being lied to and playing the fool, it’s a really bad idea to attempt to ally any aspect of the church with the state.
