I want to be clear: I identify as a political progressive. I
embrace the notion that governments can invest in their citizens and produce
healthier societies. I am not opposed to policies that help people. However, I
have noticed a fatal flaw in the programs that progressives tend
to champion: they are fundamentally unjust, separating people based on who is
“deserving” and who is not.
Income-based assistance for housing, food, healthcare and
the like is a case in point. A safety net is crucial for survival in a society
such as ours, one that simply doesn’t pay most people a living wage. However,
it also creates resentment towards the “poor” by the “working poor”.
A working-class friend of mine once put it this way whilst
explaining his animosity towards “welfare” programs and his support for Donald
Trump, “I’ve worked all my life just to keep my head above water and nobody
helped me.” It wasn’t so much that he felt the poor were “undeserving”, as much
as he wondered why he was not. Further embedded in his comment is the sense
that he was being punished for his hard work.
Student loan forgiveness is another good example. Again,
it’s not that it’s a bad idea, it’s just that some people have made many
serious sacrifices of time and money to pay off their student loans.
Potentially forgiving that debt now feels like a slap in the face. Again,
attempts to justifiably help relieve the financial stress for some feels like an
insult for others.
Parental leave is a third example. It’s undeniably important
for parents to get time off to spend with their children, especially in the
critical early years of development. I like the idea of guaranteeing a
reasonable portion of time for workers to take care of their families. However,
whenever I hear politicians gushing over the value of parents in society, my
blood starts to boil Why? As a childless person, the message I receive from those
advocating for parental leave is this: you have no kids and, therefore, you are
not deserving of paid time off. In addition, if parental leave policies go into
effect, the person who will be left to pick up the slack at work? Again, an attempt to help one group creates
resentment in another.
Family leave might be more inclusive, but many of us do not
even have families. My question is this: why not just mandate paid leave for
all workers regardless of the reason? Just leave it at “leave”. Look, I’ve just
created my slogan!
In the case of income-based programs, the concerns I
outlined above bring me to just one of the reasons I support a Basic Minimum
Income (BMI) as a less exclusionary approach to human investment. In addition
to being flexible and efficient, as well as potentially necessary in a society
that faces increasing automation, a uniformly applied, reasonably determined BMI
could, at least theoretically, replace programs that determine who is
“deserving” and who is not.
For the same reason (and others), I support a taxpayer
funded single-payer health care system that gives everyone access regardless of
income. When I worked full-time, I didn’t receive a health care subsidy because
I made “too much” money, even though I was living paycheck to paycheck and the
$400/month premium was a gigantic burden for me. Now that I’m working
part-time, I pay nothing. My old self is
very angry with my current self. “Why do you get free health care? I worked
myself half to death and nobody helped me! You lazy free loader!”
I am steadily surprised by how a group that claims they are
committed to bringing people together consistently support policies that push
people apart. To get support, progressives need to stop advancing programs that
sound compassionate but are inherently divisive.
