Return to charity; rediscover community
----------
by Angela Eckhardt and Tamar Hare
The authors applaud Americans' commitment to charity but argue
that in order for charity to really work, we must remove
government from the equation.

http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/health_ss/philanthropy_oped.htm

Return to charity, rediscover community

By Angela Eckhardt and Tamar Hare

During the holidays our thoughts naturally turn to charitable giving. With
the spirit of the season still fresh in
our hearts, let's take a moment to reflect on our record of philanthropy.
Oregonians in particular can be proud
of their generosity. According to a study by The Oregon Community
Foundation, charitable contributions in
this state increased 24% between 1997 and 1998, and are growing at a faster
rate than the rest of the nation.

This is good news, but Oregonians and other Americans still have a way to go
before private philanthropy can
resume its rightful role in our society.

In the last century we've seen a noticeable shift away from private
responsibility for the provision of care and
increased reliance on public funds. This shift amounts to more than a change
in funding mechanisms; it has
served to undermine the strength of our communities. To understand why, we
need look no further than the
definition of philanthropy: literally, "love for mankind." Private charity
allows love for mankind to flourish in
a way that government simply cannot.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries most Americans took for granted
that charity was not a function of
government. Churches and fraternal societies provided a social network,
within which neighbors pooled
resources for regular benefits such as health insurance, and helped one
another in times of crisis. These
networks, which were especially important to African Americans and
immigrants, emphasized self-help and
mutual aid in coping with life's hardships.

Private charities offered a further safety net for those in greatest need.
One example of the effectiveness of
private aid was during the aftermath of the Chicago fire of 1871, which
consumed one-third of the city. Mayor
Roswell B. Mason had the foresight to limit government involvement in the
relief effort, asking the Chicago
Relief and Aid Society, the city's largest charity, to direct relief
instead.

Citizens from across America and from 29 foreign countries came to the aid
of Chicago residents, donating
nearly $5 million (in 1871 dollars) in aid.

Part of the reason the Society was so successful in providing relief was
that it practiced "scientific charity,"
what today might be called tough love. The Society used applications and
reference checks to identify those
who truly needed assistance and screen out anyone who would take advantage
of the system. Most importantly,

the Society was careful not to foster dependency within the community;
rather, it focused on helping
individuals become self-sufficient by arranging work for the victims.

Acts of charity were not unique to the Chicago fire. Historically-and as
Oregonians have demonstrated-there is
a strong record of generosity in America.

Over the past century, however, the level of government assistance has
increased substantially. Let's be clear:
there is no generosity at play in government welfare. Taxes are taken
forcibly; they are not offered voluntarily
as a matter of good will. The difference is significant: coercive systems
lead to resentment among citizens,
whereas voluntarism fosters community. Further, when the government provides
social services individuals
have less incentive to offer voluntary assistance, and less disposable
income with which to do so.

The tough love that is necessary to offer productive charity is not natural
to the government-provider system.
Unlike the highly successful Chicago Relief Society, government agencies are
designed to behave in an
impersonal, value-free and uniform manner. Such agencies can provide for the
material wants of those in need,
but will have minimal success moving individuals out of poverty and toward
self-sufficiency.

Oregonians have shown a strong commitment to the well being of their fellow
citizens. Now we can take this
to the next level by removing government from charity and letting private
contributions, benevolence and civil
society flourish like it did years ago. When we allow private charitable
giving to resume its proper place, we
will return to the true meaning of philanthropy.