Charity Disparity: The Virtue That Can Only Be Practiced Privately

By Selwyn Duke

“We make a living by what we get,” said Winston Churchill, “but we make a life by what we give.”

Well more than 2,000 years before, ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu also sang charity’s praises.

“The wise man does not lay up his own treasures,” he averred. “The more he gives to others, the more he has for his own.” There’s also the saying, “Charity is the lifeblood of a compassionate society.” This raises a question, too:

If we were to “outsource” all our good works to government — and even assuming they then remained “good” — would society’s compassion not die like a blood-starved limb?

This issue is front and center currently with ferocious Hurricane Helene’s ravaging of western North Carolina and parts of Georgia and South Carolina. As of this writing, the exact death toll is unknown, with some saying it may top 1,000. Yet this example of the worst of nature has been met by the best, and perhaps worst, of man. The finest-hour part would be an overwhelming exhibition of charitable endeavor, with Americans, long known as the world’s most generous people, rising nobly to the occasion. In fact, one source holds that the “vast majority of rescue work that is being done is with civilian helicopters,” to provide one example. Then there’s the darker side: We’ve heard stories about how the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is in the stricken areas, is not only impeding charitable efforts, but is sometimes threatening to arrest citizens who’d dare cross its red-tape lines. 

Also enraging people is hearing that, as the New York Post claimed October 3, “Feds say there’s no money left to respond to hurricanes — after FEMA spent $1.4B on migrants.” The agency has countered this, saying that its spending in hurricane-affected areas topped $210 million as of October 7. This, however, is dwarfed by the approximately quarter trillion dollars Ukraine has received in U.S. aid in an effort that, among other effects, moves us closer to thermonuclear war with Russia. Yet while a storm of accusations will whirl in these situations, and while people will dispute the facts, what’s unchanging is the Truth. This brings us to this essay’s main question: How is charity best administered, privately or publicly? And, could this be a sort of trick question?

First off, I’ll emphasize that government certainly can have a role, in accordance with the Constitution, in rescue operations and other emergency services; we certainly accept, for example, local government police and fire departments. Yet what role should government have in charity?

Late journalist and author P.J. O’Rourke certainly had his answer. “A politician who portrays himself as ‘caring’ and ‘sensitive’ because he wants to expand the government’s charitable programs is merely saying that he’s willing to try to do good with other people’s money. Well, who isn’t?” he famously wrote. “And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he’ll do good with his own money — if a gun is held to his head.” Yet O’Rourke was wrong, at least about one matter: “Charitable government program” is an oxymoron.

“Charity brings to life again those who are spiritually dead.” 

— Thomas Aquinas

First consider that while people generally associate “charity” with freely provided material aid, it actually encompasses far more. For it is, do note, a virtue; i.e., part of that unchanging and objective set of good moral habits. Medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas even called it “the most excellent of the virtues,” one that “unites us to God.” This is reflected in the word “charity’s” origins, with the Online Etymology Dictionary informing that in late Old English it sometimes referred to “Christian love in its highest manifestation.” In fact, as Aquinas put it, “The habit of charity extends not only to the love of God, but also the love of our neighbor.” So far from being merely the benevolent act of giving things, important though that frequently is, charity is an attitude, a moral habit, just one of whose manifestations is the love-catalyzed provision of material aid to the needy.

Now, it’s often pointed out, while explaining why man was gifted free will, that without it there could be no love. For it’s only love if someone could have elected to be unloving, but chose the better portion. Likewise, since love is integral to charity, is it really charity when not freely offered? Moreover, is it charitable when it involves no personal sacrifice, when the shirt given is off somebody else’s back? So what can we say about government programs, where good is done with other people’s money or at the end of someone’s gun? They might occasionally be necessary, should always be constitutional, and sometimes might even do more good than harm — but charity they are not.              

Nonetheless, the debate ever rages over what precisely is the government’s role. Who should do what? The answer lies in the long-understood principle of “subsidiarity”: i.e., that the smallest possible unit of society that can perform a given task should do so. For instance, what the family can do must not be outsourced to a larger entity, not even a private organization. This explains, too, one reason why our Constitution grants most powers to the states and people: The feds mustn’t be involved in what can be handled lower down the food chain — that is, most everything.

One reason for this relates to service. Where would you expect to be treated better, at the motor-vehicle bureau or a mom-and-pop store — or a church food pantry? Oh, there are some good people working at government agencies. But the absence of the profit motive, and the absence in principle of the charity motive, is problematic. The store owner prospers by serving you, and the church worker volunteers usually because his heart is in the act of service. Most bureaucrats, however, would be elsewhere if not for the paycheck, which, mind you, is the same whether they leave you satisfied or seething.

This lack of both the profit and love motives, and the absence of the need to survive among competitors for your “business,” also yields great inefficiency. Just consider that studies “have found that 70% of the money spent on budgeting for government assistance gets spent upholding the bureaucracies, with only 30% actually going to the poor,” related the Foundation for Economic Education in 2021. Private charities reverse this: They “give over 70% of their proceeds to the poor,” the site continued.  

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’” 

— President Ronald Reagan

Sadder still is that in certain cases, government might do better getting the percentage of its assistance-budgeting money that’s delivered to the poor down to zero. Why? Prior to the “war on poverty,” Americans were already lifting themselves from penury. Not only was the U.S. poverty rate declining in general, but consider the black community, for which, it has been claimed, welfare-like programs are most specifically designed. Black families’ poverty rate “fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs,” related economics professor Thomas Sowell in 2004. It dropped slightly less than that — 17 percentage points — on a per-decade basis in the ’60s. And what happened in the ’70s, once anti-poverty programs were in full swing? It fell one point, five percent as much as during the pre-big-government-program era. Explanation?

In part, government’s “handouts encouraged people to become dependent on handouts. Learned helplessness, it’s called,” asserted investigative journalist John Stossel in 2022. “Welfare created an ‘underclass,’ generations of people who don’t work. They’d lose benefits if they do,” he continued. “Generations of people bear children but don’t marry. They’d lose benefits if they do.” Now, in fairness, there’s a strong moral/cultural component to this, too, though that’s beyond this article’s scope. (Explaining man’s behavior solely by way of economic influences is the Marxist mistake.) Regardless, correlation does not favor the statist thesis. And what’s for sure is that this is “why charity is better,” to quote Stossel again. “Charity workers can make judgments about who needs help and who needs a push.”

What about, however, another tragic phenomenon: When government actually gives charity workers a push — out of the charity business? The Hurricane Helene situation is a sad example of this, too. There are seemingly credible reports of government officials “stealing” donated goods and stymieing private relief efforts. Just consider the case of Jordan Seidhom and his son, Landon. Having a background in law enforcement and firefighting, and being a pilot who owns his own helicopter, Seidhom decided to help families he heard were stranded in North Carolina. And help he did, dropping off supplies and rescuing multiple storm victims.

That is, until he encountered a jobsworth fire official who threatened him with arrest if he didn’t leave the area.

The man even insisted Seidhom not pick up his co-pilot son, whom he’d left in a rescue spot with a victim! (The small helicopter obviously could carry only so much weight.) Seidhom defied the command and did pick up his son, but had to depart. He’s certain, too, that the official’s decision endangered lives.

While that official was perhaps on a power trip, let us be charitable ourselves. Let us acknowledge that most people working in government are just that, people, not demons bent on destruction. Yet even the best intentions can’t eliminate an intractable government-program problem: red tape. But something else can. And a good example of such occurred after Hurricane Katrina hit southeast Mississippi in 2005. FEMA was on the job then also, controlling a Camp Shelby staging area loaded with supplies, including 18-wheelers full of ice.

The problem, Forrest County Sheriff Billy McGee found, was that the supplies weren’t being released in a timely fashion to those in need. And on the fourth day after the storm, and after getting a bureaucratic runaround, he’d had enough. He then gave a master class on cutting red tape.

After having words with a FEMA representative at the staging area, he and five deputies had begun the process of commandeering the ice trucks — when an armed guardsman intervened. “We asked him to get off the truck, told him we were taking the truck, that he was obstructing,” McGee told WDAM 7 in 2015. “He refused to [get off], and so we removed him from the truck, handcuffed him, put him in a patrol car so we could all get out of there.” So McGee and desperate victims got their ice and FEMA and a guardsman got educated — in what happens when you “try that in a small town.”

“Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.” — Mother Teresa

Transitioning from uplifting history to uplifting news, charity is, thankfully, making a difference for Hurricane Helene’s victims. A GoFundMe campaign launched by President Donald Trump has raised $7.7 million for survivors, Christian organization Samaritan’s Purse is on the scene providing relief, and Elon Musk is sending North Carolina Starlink terminals to facilitate communication. And as American Thinker wrote October 4, describing relief efforts, the stories of charity remind us

of who we are. People who have the resources and talents are tirelessly helping others locate loved ones, provide food and essentials, and dig out. People are willing to house families and farm animals in their own homes and farms that weren’t damaged, or were less damaged. Restaurants and stores are opening their doors to give out free food. Gyms are opening to the public to offer showers. Mule teams are being assembled to traverse areas inaccessible to vehicles.

Why, even Jordan Seidhom is back in action. A Temporary Flight Restriction that was issued after his confrontation with the imperious official was lifted the next day and, says Seidhom, the government is now “basically begging for these helicopters.” The military choppers sent to the area, he explains, are too large to land in the rescue locations’ tight confines.

“Charity is the bridge that connects hearts.” — Noah Collins

Of course, it’s beautiful and necessary that people’s material needs are being met. It’s also fine if the government contributes (constitutionally); a disaster is an all-hands-on-deck situation. The big picture, however, is that man does not live on bread alone. The more we outsource good works to the state and supplant charity, the more people get the message, “That’s the government’s job.” This is tragic because, over a nation’s lifetime, charity’s greatest effect is that which preserves civilizations: moral and spiritual. Charity doesn’t just feed a man, but feeds the souls of recipient and giver; it’s doesn’t just clothe a child, but clothes him and his helper in fellowship; it doesn’t just quench a woman’s thirst, but quenches that deep desire to show and receive love; it doesn’t just connect the needy with life-giving aid, but connects beneficiary and benefactor, more closely, to the spirit of God.

So an act of charity can save the day, but a habit of charity can save all our tomorrows.

                   This article was originally published at The New American.