There are several reasons why I voted for Steven Harper, most having to do with fiscal issues and disappointment in Paul Martin’s leadership. However one not mentioned within my immediate blogging circle is that most conservative governments temporarily disrupt the victim-beggar complex. The socialist equivalent of the military-industrial complex, the victim beggar complex essentially writes its own tickets by proclaiming impending doom for specific minority groups in hopes of obtaining government money. They claim to exist because of injustice and to not fund them would be to perpetuate the injustice.
Complaints from social activists are typically grounded in fact – most native reserves are in terrible shape, domestic abuse is unacceptably common (I say this as someone who has had family work with Women’s House and the Children’s Aid Society – so many stories …), many black children grow up in an unhealthy environment while many Canadians outside the chic urban centers aren’t exactly “enlightened†about gay rights.
However, social activists exploit these injustices by brow-beating politicians and society into funding high-level “projectsâ€. Most activists seem to follow the same template when shaking down the government –
Shock & Awe Drama
Activists must first make their mark with ostentatious displays of melodrama. Techniques include ambushing politicians during televised events, blocking public communication and staging inflammatory rallies. It’s no mistake that such methods were also used by some of the greatest revolutionaries in history, from Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr. So what’s the distinction? That’s a bit of a grey area – as the saying goes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter (Earlier this year, I got into a nasty argument on Jack’s Newswatch with some anti-Mandela supporters of MP Rob Anders). Ultimately, the distinction can be made in hindsight – if the activists follow the path of events described below then they probably aren’t Gandhi material.
Demonstrate Historical Injustice
Provide impromptu history lessons (real and imagined) showcasing the irrefutable nobility of the target group before the “mainstream†destroyed everything. Again, much of the ad-hoc history is grounded in fact so the trick is to simply edit out the grey areas. For instance, it is permissible to discuss how, until 1960, natives were not even allowed suffrage without sacrificing their treaty claims. European-led genocides like the extinction of the Beothuk tribe (killed by both attrition and disease) in Newfoundland are also fair game. However, the conquest of natives by natives, like the Huron’s decimation by the Iroquois, is strictly off limits. One group must be absolute victims for the victim-beggar complex to work.
Silence the Opposition
Dissident voices from outside the target groups are simply dismissed as homophobes, sexists, racists, or whatever accusation fits. Inevitably, some of the opposition to the activism will be rooted in disdain for the target group, but far more often the dissidence is against the activists themselves and the way they choose to frame the issue. Blurring this distinction is essential to making sure non-sympathetic outsiders don’t spoil the scheme.
This approach can be applied even when the community group isn’t purely political. Last year, Toronto City Council. stripped the Caribbean Cultural Committee (CCC) of their yearly funding for Caribana, citing that the CCC –ritually plagued by financial difficulties- did not file proper financial statements for 2005. Despite the fact that the funding was awarded to another Caribbean planning committee (and one with a strong track record) community activists affiliated with the CCC nonetheless attacked city council and its liason, Joe Mihevc, as racists who supported black exploitation.
Internal dissidence leads to accusations of “self-hatredâ€, in that to oppose the activist group is to oppose the entire demographic of its clients. Much like a mad preacher presents his authority as being congruent with God’s will, the mad activist claims to speak for all natives/gays/etc. Of course, none of these leaders are democratically elected outside the confines of their groups, but this fact is disregarded. Those gays who don’t want to flamboyantly march in the streets are dismissed self-hating gays who want to stay in the closet. Blacks who don’t want young criminals on the streets and extended welfare programs are accused of wanting to be white. Women who don’t agree with the more radical tenets of feminism are condemned as old fashioned. In all cases, the internal dissidents aren’t considered “real†representatives of their group.
Apply for the Program
No matter that the question was, the answer is always “more government moneyâ€. The details are window dressing. Free market be damned. Never mind self-reliance.
Administer the Program
Administration is the fun part. Once the government transfers huge sums of money, the bureaucracy starts to take shape. First an internal structure is solidified within the group and then office space is setup. The amount of actual progress made for the client group varies greatly but one can always be sure that the bureaucracy is well fed. An outside observer would quickly note that the Jane-Finch corridor is still a hell-hole of high unemployment, drug addiction among natives is still epidemic and open homophobia is still pervasive. The typical activist response amounts to “Rome wasn’t built in a day†and this is true – however Government money is often dispensed without any concrete targets.
For instance, a community group may receive $500,000 to setup a job program but neither the group nor the government provides any benchmark to determine whether funding should continue (e.g. 30 or more clients obtaining full time employment after the first 6 months of operation). Meanwhile, less scrupulous members in the group “expense†the money away on dinners, entertaining and even getting their nails done (yes, I actually came across the latter while investigating one community group).
Of course, the victim-beggar complex operates cyclically rather than sequentially. There mere existence of injustice is used as justification for the group to exist, which provides extra incentive for ineffectiveness once the funding is obtained. Thus, the juggernaut of social “correction†rolls on, daring anyone to challenge its legitimacy …
…. Until a conservative government comes into power. Although, not always hostile to community concerns, conservative governments are nonetheless branded as 100% redneck and hostile to activist schemes (as mentioned before, this will be spun into an accusation of overall bigotry). While some good works may fall by the wayside (and I have not encountered any evidence of this happening with the current government) the rest of the country gets a much-needed break and a government committed to strengthening the economy for the benefit of all rather than funneling tax dollars to the loudest few.
Update: Sandy at Crux of the Matter has expanded on this idea with her post “Time to change our “entitlement culture–. I highly recommend checking out her work!
Sphere: Related Content
This is a really helpful piece showing the difference as it does exist between the Conservatives (our present gov’t demonstrating ‘compassionate conservatism’ such as the newly instituted policy in the budget to help parents of disabled children, et.al) — as they have absolutely demonstrated good fiscal management while finally realizing tax relief for working families and seniors. Put that up against the Liberal gov’t of thirteen years, where taxes were piggybacked one on top of another on citizens, yet, the rhetoric always served the socialist agenda (their orgs and staff – i.e., SOW), while their clients were just names on lists with gov’t money, therefore aid never hitting the target.
You’ve broken the two parties’ agendas up for anyone to read and understand. Let readers think which party will serve our citizens more justly, fairly, equitably while promoting self-worth and reliance. Canadians are more aware than ever of the enormity of our geography, our commerce and industries across all provinces and territories and citizens are responding to the calls across the regions. At the same time, our gov’t has worked long and hard on rising crime rates and threats from abroad within our borders. There’s a record of progress we reviewed just recently and it’s thanks to Sandy, Jack and Cynapse, Conservatives are getting on top of the issues. What’s really important as in Cynapse’ piece, is to COMPARE the choices the various parties offer the country. I know I’ve made my choice, based on what I’ve learned and about 24 people I know will vote for the better choice (Conservatives) come provincial election this October. And we’ll bide our time till the federal election. Based on what we’ve witnessed, we’re prepared to support PM Stephen Harper and his PRESENT TEAM all the way…
Kudos to these political bloggers for the clear direction, valid arguments, and even providing a sense of hopefulness for our collective future as probably the most fortunate country in the world, that’s been “pulled out of a lot of trouble for a couple of decades” (almost brought us down, actually). The choice we can make for the future has become just that much clearer.
Thanks much.
I’m South African, not Canadian – and I work for an NGO. A lot of valid points are made here. But redress is often needed for groups that have ended up in a social and economic tailspin. In addition, government institutionalism (doing things the same old way and having career success de-linked from results) often prevents it being an effective means to that redress.
The key here – which you mention – is that the government must be able to stipulate concrete results within a reasonable period. Just as a business takes time to become profitable, an organisation takes time to turn a new concept into results. But it doesn’t take forever. Nor is it ever “impossible to quantify” the work that an organisation does. Even building self-esteem must result in something – improved school performance, reduction of violence or substance abuse – with all kinds of hard measures that are available if they look hard enough. Otherwise it frankly isn’t worth the money. The results must also be cost-effective. Spending $1000,000 per child for a 1% improvement in school results or post-school income is clearly not money well spent – find someone else who can do more with the money.
I have also been shocked by the willingness of government to hand out money demanding outputs (work completed) rather than outcomes (benefits obtained). This is the key. When they yowl about racism or ignoring communities, the government can respond with, “failed to improve agreed indicators over a period of x years at a cost of y to the taxpayer.”