I do not disagree that welfare has and will be abused. I do not disagree that sustained handouts breed a lack of ambition. Remember: I consider myself a centrist. I do not feel the need to swallow the whole Democrat or Republican platform simply because they are there.
I am in favor of these programs to get people off welfare. For example, I support Jimmy Carter and Habitat for Humanity, which allows hard working people of lower income to get their first home by applying their own 'sweat equity'.
In high school, our Key Club (high school affiliate of the Kiwanis) became involved in raising money for CARE. One of the things that impressed me about the CARE pitch was their approach. They did not come into a country and give out food. They came into a country with tools, experts, and the necessary materials to build an infrastructure of self support within that country. Rather than a 'hand out', they were lending a helping hand. These are the type of programs we need to support, both here in the US and internationally.
So, that is why I support (groans coming, I can hear them) affirmative action in education. I believe that people who have had to climb a steeper slope than most need a way of leveling the playing field while they obtain their education. Obtaining an education is a similar way of 'lending a hand' without simply being a 'hand out'.
I know the counter argument. Qualified candidates are pushed aside to make room for those 'less qualified'. However, these higher 'qualifications' were usually obtained by someone on a less steep slope. That is, one of the reasons that their numbers are better is that they had an easier path; better schools, more support, etc.
Affirmative action is far from perfect. I believe the criteria should be a combination of the environment the person was raised in, and income. Race alone is not the correct criteria, I believe. I understand that many AA programs may have used race as the primary factor; I am opposed to such programs.
I can hear the maelstorm coming... |
