One stigma that blocks what might otherwise be a compassionate response toward the jobless and homeless is the notion that "tough love" will solve everything. Ironically, the notion started out in a Christian book on the subject of child rearing by James Dobson, but the concept has arguably evolved into a rational for cultural Darwinism --- survival of the fittest. More ironic still is that the benevolence efforts of bygone eras would most likely be dismissed as the work of socialists today. The idea that we are our brother's keeper --- to love our neighbor as ourselves --- has been transformed by pop psychology to an endorsement of personal interest above that of a broader community or social responsibility. The self-help gurus over the past 30 years have been repeatedly told us what we want to hear: that we give too much, love too much and can't say "No". To feel angst or guilt is merely "codependent". We must learn how to unravel our own consciences, embrace individualism and declare freedom from that pull of obligation to someone other than ourselves. This is value system is largely new to our culture but it has no doubt added to the suffering of millions of Americans throughout this protracted recession. By contrast, in the poorest of poor countries, you see that much like herd animals people have an innate sense that their odds of survival are better when they stick together --- when they cooperate. Here, we've all but bred that instinct out of our modern "First World" existence.
It's one thing to enable someone with an untreated drug or alcohol addiction --- there is a real case to be made for letting addicts hit rock bottom. But when it comes to mental illness a different set of factors may be at play... I grew up in a place where the only "hobos" were characters in library books. Then President Regan liberated the mentally ill from life in an institution for the sake of their civil rights --- in the midst of another nasty recession, if recollection serves. That's the point in my life where the sight of panhandlers on the streets became routine. Of course, I don't think it is possible to argue in this small post about the merits of Reagan's actions. However, I am sure that giving the institutionalized over to "freedom" on the streets was thought to save the taxpayer money. Like all things in life, however, the "free lunch" was not to be. The next institution to take up the slack became the prison system, many of which are running over costs across the nation --- with taxpayers once again on the hook. Many who are imprisoned really ought to be in treatment programs and are not. Again the taxpayer is on the hook when the mentally disabled end up right back behind bars.
Having said that, I want to draw a clear line between then vs. now and those issues vs. our current economic crisis: Millions of Americans who never thought they would find themselves living out of their cars or in a cheap motel are finding themselves exactly in that place. These are folks who played by the rules, graduated from school, held down a job, paid their dues and maybe even earned a college or vocational degree --- and yet they are unable to fend for themselves. This Great Recession is headed for a double dip, yet what is downright flabbergasting is that most news sites that address unemployment, homelessness and "food insecurity" continue to draw comments from people who are absolutely convinced that the long-term unemployed must be lacking a work ethic, sitting on the couch all day collecting unemployment, under-qualified, etc. In fact, I hear the EEOC is holding hearings with the intent of possibly revising the Civil Rights Act because it is apparently EMPLOYER POLICY to weed out all jobless applicants! Either way, this is a particularly cruel and unusual assumption dumped on the backs of those who have already had it hard enough. More than cruel, it is clueless! There are no bragging rights to unemployment or to losing one's home or to having to hit one's friends and family up for help. Anyone who believes that economic hardship is a lifestyle choice is out to lunch.
I can understand how parents here are struggling against the dysfunction that housing someone with mental or substance abuse problems may pose. In that instance, the key to helping vs. enabling is to make assistance conditional upon some sort of tangible progress --- enrolling in classes, working toward a GED, to overcome learning disabilities with a tutor, fill out disability paperwork to receive aid, take one's ADHD meds, go to AAA meetings and address whatever the underlying problem is. But what about the families/friends of those who are disadvantaged and NOT on drugs, who do NOT have criminal histories, who DO want to work? I can only urge readers that if your fear for that disadvantaged individual is more likely to translate into criticism rather than actual help, acknowledge the counterproductive nature of such an attitude. Go easy on those who are about to lose everything. The last thing anyone needs in these hard-luck times is the feeling that they are also losing the better side of YOU to the anger, guilt, helplessness or fear of these dire circumstances. The world isn't the same as it was 5 years ago. It is so much easier to assign blame rather than to extend a helping hand, but it's not necessarily the right thing to do.
Of all things nasty about this difficult economy, perhaps the biggest tragedy is the relationships that fray because of it. That need not happen! It is up to families and extended families to BEHAVE LIKE FAMILIES (and even friends to recognize when that isn't happening and to take some action, no matter how small). Too many people who were formerly productive members of society are finding, just when they need it most, that the world is filled with fair-weather friends and even worse, fair-weather family members who don't want to make sacrifices to help out their own. Excuses are easy to come by when the underlying sentiment is rooted in anxiety or selfishness: Grievances will be emphasized to justify the distance and the emotional disconnect. It's a sad fact of life. We all must struggle to be the "bigger person" --- to forgive one another of our shortcomings in these difficult times.
We have a strong individualist streak in American culture, a sense of self sufficiency that can make us strong yet also threatens to make us indifferent. None of us want to give up our single-family lifestyle or take in boarders (family or otherwise). It' not what we're accustomed to. Just the same, try to fight the temptation to skip out on someone you may know who needs assistance. The way this economy is going, next time you might find yourself on the other side of the employment fence --- in which case it will only help to know a few people who are inclined to return the favor.
Above all, remember: Bad things don't necessarily happen to bad people. Ours is an unfair world where you can't always reap the benefits of your best efforts. That doesn't mean you should give up on yourself --- or believe others who are inclined to give up on YOU. Hard times can happen to anyone, even the best of us. The proverbial Golden Rule isn't just some archaic ideal --- it's exactly what we will need if we are to band together and overcome these tough times with both our consciences and the roofs over our heads intact. Never give up on yourself and never give up on each other!
