THE LAST RIVER MILE

I don’t fit neatly into the classic political polarities on government food assistance programs.

On the one hand, learned dependency is a real thing. Simply handing out assistance may feel good to the giver, but it doesn’t do anything to substantively change the circumstances that create food insecurity. While no ill will is intended, it says to the poor person, “Stay poor.” It sets up a superior/inferior relationship which assumes that a person caught in poverty has nothing to contribute to a partnership which would alleviate that person’s situation.

On the other hand, the playing field is not level, and the starting line is not even. A child born in poverty starts school already behind advantaged children. It is a pleasant myth that everyone in this country has the opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Poverty isn’t about individual failure. It’s about practices and systems that either fail some groups of people or that depend on some staying below the poverty line. Yes, government dependence is loaded with pitfalls. But the absence of any government safety nets presumes that local communities will be responsible in picking up that obligation. Public education across the nation, for example, proves that this type of responsibility is not dealt with equally from community to community. Hence the need for government back-up.

I find it wonderful that so many regions across the country are pulling together coalitions of businesses, churches, not-for-profits, and organizations to fill the gap which might be created by the limiting of SNAP federal benefits today, due to the continuing government shut-down. Would that it could have been a proactive thing all along, rather that just the reaction it is now. Still, it’s good.

Having said that, the use of food insecurity for political leverage is unconscionable. Both parties on Capital Hill are accountable for this. And I can’t help but note that this political pissing contest is being done by people whose day-to-day lives are completely unaffected by all this. (The President is currently at his retreat, and the Senate is in recess, on the very day that millions could be affected by food loss.)

Ultimately, poverty is not just about lack of resources. It is about broken relationship or lack of relationship that will help. The conservative default is to let the poor fend for themselves, resulting in no relationship with poor people. The liberal default is to “throw money at it” and reinforce a superior/inferior relationship, from a significant distance. Neither involve spending the time, effort, and resources necessary to be with the poor, to build meaningful relationships, and to partner toward a better tomorrow in which all thrive together.

For followers of Jesus, there are over 2,000 Bible verses addressing mercy, justice, compassion, and care for the poor. (As opposed to the smattering of verses allegedly addressing non-essential issues which we church people treat as life-or-death.) However we address poverty, to use hunger as a political tool and as leverage for political gain is its own kind of evil.

I’ll see you around the next bend in the river.