the american dream
The American Dream was never about wealth. Our ancestors did not come to America with aspirations of riches and decadence. Instead they came because they responded to our belief in hope. They heard of the vast opportunities and limitless horizons and hoped they could just have a chance at that. They knew what they were getting themselves into, they were crowded on the same boats as everyone else, waited in the lines our our shores just like everyone else and were confronted with the cold reality that once they got here, no one was going to be looking out for them.
That was perhaps the best thing that could have happened to them because they realized the importance of self-reliance, independence, and perseverance, but perhaps most importantly they realized the importance of community. Whether it was in the crime families from Italy or the residential neighborhoods like Chinatown or Germantown, they came to understand the value of extensive support systems designed to maintain if not promote the common good. The ones who made something of themselves, managed to become wealthy or influential because they knew the value of this and fed it.
Rockefeller and Carnegie donated most of their money back to public and community groups, they gave tirelessly to valuable charities which often provided care and comfort when government and corporate entities could or would not. Their kind is not forgotten as even today Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have donated most of their money to funding organizations that benefit communities. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does today what Carnegie did a hundred years ago for libraries but also has a program for international health care.
This good will has been copied by corporations who understand the best way to maintain a positive image with their customers is to give back to the communities that they reside in. The beauty of this system is that it was created naturally by pressure in economic markets not imposed iron-handedly by well meaning but mortal overseers. The benefit derived from this is that it creates a self-supporting and self-correcting system, one that responds naturally to cyclical changes rather than tyrannically by laws and regulations and avoids excessive resentment by the givers and receivers.
To see how the system has failed, or at least failed to succeed, one needs only to look at how the government works. While much good comes from government agencies, many feel left out and a growing resentment exists. The top down enforcement of mandatory regulations and a codified system results in a bureacratic and sometimes draconian organization out of necessity and liability rather than purpose and intent.
FEMA is a prime example of governing agencies being limited by and strictly subject to a style of charity and community service. After hurricane Katrina, donations both private and federal were piped in to aid in the rescue and rebuilding work required after the devastation. While many were more than happy to give their money and time, many were not or were at least hesitant. This was not because of a lack of empathy or sympathy, but rather a sense of resentment towards the recipients of their charity who lived in such a high risk areas.
This debate extened beyond Katrina and included the victims of hurricane disaster survivors who repeatedly refused to leave their homes. This characterization is unfair for many. Many could not leave because of a lack of transportation or congestion on the highways, many would have had to sacrifice their homes which too often was all they had. FEMA has recently enacted new policies limiting the amount of aid they can provide various organizations and individuals. The result is pressure on survivors to move away or pay enormous insurance rates to live in their traditional homes. Hard working citizens unaffected by these disasters are tired of their taxes going to buy other people’s new homes. This dichotomy fosters the resentment that leads to conservative or liberal biases.
The problem arises from the perception of freeloaders, but if we can all agree that in every modern society, such a problem will exist to an extent then we can begin to attack the solvable problems and isolate others. We can all agree that the people affected by the wildfires in California, the hurricanes in Florida and the south, tornadoes in the Midwest and floods nationwide deserve aid when the crisis becomes too gargantuan for their communities to prevent or recover from. Taking this into account with our previous assumption that freeloaders tend to exist, we should come to realize that our resentment lies not with the needy but the greedy.
Beyond this is the fundamental issue of money. Most of us do not have all the money of a Bill Gates so we assume that we can not help much. This misconception comes from a tendency to desire immediate gratification and immediate results. We look at the work that modern philanthropists do and see the thousands of computers they purchase for libraries and compare that with the child we have taught to use one computer and see the enormous disparity. We loook at the millions contributed to Katrina victims and compare it to the few houses we may have helped build and dispair at the work remaining to be done. Many of us are content to donate money to charities as a tithe of our generosity and compassion but we have forgotten what those charities are intended for, namely to provide support systems. Donations only work when there are people willing to put that money to good use in a community whether that is disaster relief or providing food to local homeless shelters.
People can only be as strong as their weakest moments but with a strong support systems, with well organized, well meaning, volunteer driven community organizations, everyone should have others to turn to in time of need. That is what people with limited means can donate: their time.
