While doing research on the neo-conservative view of poverty, I was getting discouraged by the lack of results from typing in “neo-conservatism and poverty” into Google. After several attempts and hard feelings towards Google, I decided to go another way and research the views of neo-conservatism in general. After looking at some sites and recent interviews from the conservative party, I realized that it wasn’t in fact Google’s fault; it was that poverty is not a topic that is addressed by the conservatives!
In April of this year, Stephen Harper labelled the conservative policy platform as “Here for Canada”. As Mullaly (2007) mentions in his textbook, “[t]he central social values of neo-conservatism are freedom or liberty, individualism, and inequality” (p.79). This could not have been more apparent than in this speech! Harper’s plan of action for the conservative government was based on keeping people in the labour force, supporting families, making the streets safe, and of course on balancing the budget. In a perfect world, yes, it would be great to have more jobs and offer training and low taxes to improve human capital of those in the workforce. Yes, it would be wonderful if all families followed the nuclear prototype and they were given a tax cut, and of course we all wish we could leave our doors unlocked and not be afraid to walk down the street in the middle of the night. Yes, in a perfect world these would be high priorities. But what about those who aren’t in the workforce and can’t be, those who don’t follow the nuclear family form, or those who rely on government relief to eat and stay alive?
The major fault of neo-conservatism is their social Darwinian approach to society (Mullaly, 2007, p.80). The neo-conservatives follow an ideology that there is a deserving and undeserving poor (p.86). They believe that the only people that deserve to be on social assistance are those who are old, have disabilities or are orphan children, and believe anyone else who is able-bodied should be able to support themselves. Neo-conservatives fail to take into account human differences and accept that not everyone is given the same chances in life. Harper mentioned in the policy platform, “We’re taking action on the priorities of Canadians who work hard and play by the rules, and we’ve steered our country through the worst global economic recession since the 1930s”. He follows the neo-conservative belief that people are poor based on their own dispositions, and that it is not fair to the people in the labour force to have to pay for their mistakes (Mullaly, 2007, p.83).
This way of government will have negative effects if implemented in our society. Poverty is a social problem that has been addressed with the welfare system to ensure the well-being of all people. If this is taken out of power with the sole benefit of having fewer taxes and more opportunities for the working classes, then the problem of poverty will spiral out of control. There would be more crime, with people having no other resources to provide for themselves or their family, and it would not give the people who are temporarily out of the workforce resources to re-enter and be contributing members. It also would fail to provide support necessary to those who do not have the ability to be in the workforce, such as people with disabilities and the elderly. This in turn would also negatively affect those in the workforce, by now having the burden of being the sole financial support to dependent family or friends.
It is apparent after looking at Harper’s view of poverty why nothing came up in Google. Neo-conservatives do not view it as a priority or something that needs to be addressed, due to their belief that poverty is an incentive for the lazy and unfit to enter the workforce (Mullaly, 2007, p.79). Therefore, it makes me wonder what he means by being “here for Canada”. Being here for Canada would not be to turn away those in need, but to give them safety and resources that they need. It would be to create more jobs, but to also make programs to help implement those who can work but have not yet entered the workforce. Being here for Canada would also be taking a proactive stance in crime prevention, not make the problem worse by forcing people to find survival strategies. Although Harper’s beliefs would be beneficial in a perfect world where everyone had equal opportunities, neo-conservatism fails to be here for all of Canada. Instead they are only here for those who need it the least.
Leah
References
Mullaly, R. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment