What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tragedy of American Compassion
Can a man be content with a piece of bread and some change tossed his way from a passerby? Today's modern welfare state expects he can. Those who control the money in our society think that giving a dollar at the train station and then appropriating a billion dollars for federal housing can cure the ails of the homeless and the poor. But the crisis of the modern welfare state is more than a crisis of government. Private charities that dispense aid indiscriminately while ignoring the moral and spiritual needs of the poor are also to blame. Like animals in the zoo at feeding time, the needy are given a plate of food but rarely receive the love and time that only a person can give. Poverty fighters 100 years ago were more compassionate--in the literal meaning of "suffering with"--than many of us are now. They opened their own homes to deserted women and children. They offered employment to nomadic men who had abandoned hope and human contact. Most significantly, they made moral demands on recipients of aid. They saw family, work, freedom, and faith as central to our being, not as life-style options. No one was allowed to eat and run. Some kind of honest labor was required of those who needed food or a place to sleep in return. Woodyards next to homeless shelters were as common in the 1890s as liquor stores are in the 1990s. When an able bodied woman sought relief, she was given a seat in the "sewing room" and asked to work on garments given to the helpless poor. To begin where poverty fighters a century ago began, Marvin Olasky emphasizes seven ideas that recent welfare practice has put affiliation, bonding, categorization, discernment, employment, freedom, and most importantly, belief in God. In the end, not much will be accomplished without a spiritual revival that transforms the everyday advice we give and receive, and the way we lead our lives. It's time we realized that there is only so much that public policy can do. That only a richness of spirit can battle a poverty of soul. The century-old question--does any given scheme of help... make great demands on men to give themselves to their brethren?--is still the right one to ask. Most of our 20th-century schemes have failed. It's time to learn from the warm hearts and hard heads of the 19th-century. "We are indebted to Olasky for bringing past lessons of history to bear on a present cultural crisis. Another great work by one of today's foremost thinkers." --Charles W. Colson, Chairman, Prison Fellowship "A comprehensive, well documented, and much needed study of the decline of true compassion that provides fresh analysis and provocative insight into the causes and cures of this American tragedy. Must reading for people who want to understand and help correct the plight of hurting people." --Dr. Anthony T. Evans, President, The Urban Alternative "Those who read and understand Olasky's work will be better prepared to move creatively in affirming the dignity of the poor, and in affirming work as a virtue." --John Perkins, Publisher, Urban Family magazine "Marvin Olasky's perceptive book shows how we, as individuals and in community with one another, can best demonstrate the genuine compassion that the poor need most of all." --Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute "Finally someone has put the horse and the cart in the right order. Marvin Olasky neither shuns compassion nor assistance for the poor, but rather gives the historical definition of each and assigns them their proper priority. Not only can this book benefit the truly needy, it can benefit the country. Not a bad accomplishment for one book." --Cal Thomas, Los Angeles Times Syndicate
302 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1992
36 people are currently reading
1082 people want to read
About the author
Marvin Olasky
58 books46 followersMarvin Olasky is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an affiliate scholar at the Acton Institute. He also chairs the Zenger House Foundation, serves as a Zenger Prize judge, and is the author of 29 books. From 1992 through 2021, he edited World.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
May 18, 2013
More than anything else, this book refutes the frequent argument that government has to look after the indigent because private charity won't or doesn't know how. Olasky takes us through the full history of charity in this country, showing the ideas that shaped it at each step in it's devolution. Starting with the categorization of workhouses and almshouses, the frequency of woodyards and sewing rooms let charitable providers differentiate the truly needy from the truly lazy. He also points out that this only worked because the charities could be personal because they worked at a local level. Through most of the first century, the underlying principal was only to help those who would help themselves or at least not hurt themselves. Olasky shows how each extension of the leniency subtly took us step-by-step down the path that the early charity workers predicted. [return][return]Too much leniency in charity was considered one of the causes of pauperism and Cotton Mather admonished people that "you may not abuse your charity by misapplying it". Nonetheless, the trend moved toward "easy charity" (my term) and then came the cry for centralization, which only government had the power to implement. During the New Deal, some worked hard in the only jobs they could get with the WPA, CCC, et al, while others fit the WPA joke "How is a WPA worker like King Solomon?" ("He takes his pick and goes to bed.") But the final blow came during the Great Society, where asking too many questions of welfare recipients was found to be in violation of their constitutional rights and social workers became a special interest group of their own (driving out volunteers, implicitly and explicitly), and, for a variety of reasons, Black leaders and welfare advocates worked hard to maintain and take the shame out of the system. There were two other surges along the way that contributed to our current state. The utopian ideas of Horace Greeley in the mid-1800's advocated that everyone had a right to the earth's resources. The extreme deliverance of his ideas were seen for what the were and failed. The trend re-emerged with the Universalists in the late 1800's. At that time, there was complaining that the idealistic charity advocates wanted to "save the world" but couldn't see individuals in the process. The wave of Social Darwinism also came and went. The anecdote of Grace Capetillo is sobering. A welfare recipient, she worked hard to save more than the limits allowed and was hauled to court about it -- having $3,000 when $1,000 was the limit. Previous to this book, I believed that the fundamental problem was that our system takes away the concept of pride from the supposed beneficiaries. Now I believe it is that we have removed all reason from the entire system, both for the beneficiaries and for society as a whole.
February 21, 2017
Finally read this book by my editor-in-chief, taking copious notes from page 1 to 320. Here's one quote: "Most of us are actually stingy, because we no longer offer the poor our time and a challenge. Our willingness to do so shows whether we care for hearts, minds, and souls, or just bodies." My editor-in-chief, everybody, dropping mic.
October 21, 2016
By far one of the most interesting non-fiction books I read last year was Life at the Bottom by Theodore Dalrymple. It presented a view of poverty that was provocative and challenging. In addition, its focus was on the ideas which create and perpetuate poverty, which is a little understood and often ignored element of the problem. The Tragedy of American Compassion takes a similar approach. The author, Marvin Olasky, seeks to delineate the pervasive ideas of those who combated poverty in the 18th and 19th century and how those ideas truly helped the poor, as opposed to the ideas of today which hurt the poor. Like Life at the Bottom, it's a provocative book which should not be ignored in the wider discussion about poverty.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of The Tragedy of American Compassion is its re-alignment of the word compassion. As with many words in politics, compassion becomes a word used as often in political attacks as it does to encourage others to actually have compassion. Furthermore, as Olasky shows, the word compassion meant something very, very different to those charity workers of the 18th and 19th century than it does to our professional social workers and bureaucrats of today. Perhaps the most challenging idea posited in the book is that some forms of charity are more harmful than doing nothing at all. In other words, Olasky suggests many of our modern prescriptions to cure poverty—such as the Great Society—has perpetuated and exacerbated some of the most pernicious problems of poverty, such as unwed pregnancy and family abandonment by fathers. These aren't necessarily new ideas from the conservative side of the ideological scale, but The Tragedy of American Compassion does a nice job of reinforcing the reasons for the belief.
As someone who believes strongly in the power of ideas, I found the book's exploration of the ideas which inform our prescriptions for poverty to be the most interesting. Olasky wrote: "Our ideas about poverty always reflect our ideas about the nature of man." There is a lot to unpack from that simple statement. As society moved away from the Biblical view of mankind, what were the impacts of that shift? How does that change our approach to poverty and how to solve it? Those are compelling questions, which I feel secular society dismisses with too little thought and consideration. Regardless of your theology or lack thereof, one must admit, in my opinion, the ideas of religion matter deeply and influence at a fundamental level how we approach societal issues and how we approach each other. Are we treating the poor like animals in a zoo—simply feeding them and not requiring any type of behavioral change—because we truly see each other as animals, merely the result of a long, uninterrupted evolutionary process, and incapable of change? The Tragedy of American Compassion adds a valuable level of insight into this consequential question. (Albeit, I found some of Olasky's comments regarding the homeless to be painting with a brush which was a bit too large but thought-provoking nonetheless).
Perhaps the biggest downfall of the book is that it was written over twenty years ago. As one can imagine, there has been a great deal more literature and research completed since the publication of this book regarding poverty, its causes, and its effects. However, I'm not convinced the ideas discussed in The Tragedy of American Compassion are any less valuable. The other downside to the book is the writing. Overall, the writing is fine, at times pithy, but not particularly memorable. Too often the book buries the reader in data which is redundant. I thought to myself once or twice while reading it: "Move on."
The Tragedy of American Compassion is a good book. It's interesting and provides a valuable perspective on poverty, as well as a compelling history of compassion throughout America's history. It wasn't as memorable or provocative as Dalrympe's excellent Life at the Bottom, but it showcases ideas regarding poverty we should not overlook.
http://thethousanderclub.blogspot.com/
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of The Tragedy of American Compassion is its re-alignment of the word compassion. As with many words in politics, compassion becomes a word used as often in political attacks as it does to encourage others to actually have compassion. Furthermore, as Olasky shows, the word compassion meant something very, very different to those charity workers of the 18th and 19th century than it does to our professional social workers and bureaucrats of today. Perhaps the most challenging idea posited in the book is that some forms of charity are more harmful than doing nothing at all. In other words, Olasky suggests many of our modern prescriptions to cure poverty—such as the Great Society—has perpetuated and exacerbated some of the most pernicious problems of poverty, such as unwed pregnancy and family abandonment by fathers. These aren't necessarily new ideas from the conservative side of the ideological scale, but The Tragedy of American Compassion does a nice job of reinforcing the reasons for the belief.
As someone who believes strongly in the power of ideas, I found the book's exploration of the ideas which inform our prescriptions for poverty to be the most interesting. Olasky wrote: "Our ideas about poverty always reflect our ideas about the nature of man." There is a lot to unpack from that simple statement. As society moved away from the Biblical view of mankind, what were the impacts of that shift? How does that change our approach to poverty and how to solve it? Those are compelling questions, which I feel secular society dismisses with too little thought and consideration. Regardless of your theology or lack thereof, one must admit, in my opinion, the ideas of religion matter deeply and influence at a fundamental level how we approach societal issues and how we approach each other. Are we treating the poor like animals in a zoo—simply feeding them and not requiring any type of behavioral change—because we truly see each other as animals, merely the result of a long, uninterrupted evolutionary process, and incapable of change? The Tragedy of American Compassion adds a valuable level of insight into this consequential question. (Albeit, I found some of Olasky's comments regarding the homeless to be painting with a brush which was a bit too large but thought-provoking nonetheless).
Perhaps the biggest downfall of the book is that it was written over twenty years ago. As one can imagine, there has been a great deal more literature and research completed since the publication of this book regarding poverty, its causes, and its effects. However, I'm not convinced the ideas discussed in The Tragedy of American Compassion are any less valuable. The other downside to the book is the writing. Overall, the writing is fine, at times pithy, but not particularly memorable. Too often the book buries the reader in data which is redundant. I thought to myself once or twice while reading it: "Move on."
The Tragedy of American Compassion is a good book. It's interesting and provides a valuable perspective on poverty, as well as a compelling history of compassion throughout America's history. It wasn't as memorable or provocative as Dalrympe's excellent Life at the Bottom, but it showcases ideas regarding poverty we should not overlook.
http://thethousanderclub.blogspot.com/
October 22, 2019
In this book, Dr. Marvin Olasky takes up the question that was as urgent in the 1990s as it is now: what is to be done about poverty in the richest nation the world has ever seen?
I came across this book in a passing reference of a contemporary conservative pundit and pot-stirrer in an interview:
(I'll let you speculate as to who's being interviewed.)
My interest was piqued, as I've recently been assigned to serving in one of the poorest areas of Kansas City, KS, and I read the book pretty quickly. I was amazed by what was described therein, quickly discovering that "The Tragedy of American Compassion is the recounting of an American history that today’s Americans never learned."
Olasky traces the devolution of attitudes toward the poor and needy from the personal and communal approach of the American colonies--one that was developed out of necessity during the hardscrabble years of settling the continent--into the universal welfare we are all too familiar with today. His claim is that as Americans became more aware of the inefficiencies of personal and communal charity, often driven by Christian conviction, and as social movements insisted that aid come with no strings attached, they abandoned charity in favor of social welfare administered by government officials. The "tragedy" Olasky portrays is one in which our desire for a more perfect solution to poverty destroyed the real achievements of what had done throughout American history to address it.
The starting point for anyone interested in these questions should be that poverty continues to afflict our nation despite having untold trillions of dollars thrown at it throughout the last 40 years. The American underclass of government dependents has only grown, not diminished, though 100 years ago what qualified as "poverty" was much more like true destitution than now. As Charles Murray summarizes,
I am reminded of the account Grover Cleveland gave for his veto of the 1880 Texas Seed Bill. After a drought had ruined crops in several Texas counties, Congress appropriated $10,000 to purchase seed grain for farmers there. In his veto message, he espoused a theory of limited government:
The great value of this book is the perceptive analysis Olasky provides of what worked in past times. The seven marks of compassion that emerged from his historical study are: Affiliation, Bonding, Categorization, Discernment, Employment, Freedom, and God. I won't detail them here, but suffice to say, he is able to not just criticize the status quo but make a compelling case for how American attitudes and practices toward the poor can drastically improve.
What I found most interesting of all was what Olasky identifies as the theological genesis of the shift from personal and communal service of the poor to state-led bureaucratic distribution of "entitlements." To be more specific, he identifies an anthropological error that is an explicit denial of the doctrine of original sin:
A more sober judgment of human nature should dwell upon the inherent tendency to indolence, deception, and serving one's self-interest with which we are all familiar. In the words of 19th century social worker Frederic Almy, “alms are like drugs, and are as dangerous,” for often “they create an appetite which is more harmful than the pain which they relieve" (p. 112). That appetite is for the rewards of labor without labor. Olasky paints a picture of American individualism that is not so preoccupied with gain that it forgets to encourage dependent or poverty-stricken neighbors to practice the habits that might eventually lead to their eventual self-sufficiency, nor to offer them spiritual sustenance as the most necessary encouragement of all. I found this portrait a moving one, which softens my hazy sense the post-industrialized American way of gritty competition and profiteering. Certainly these things were common in that era, as they are now. But I am aware of the ways in which there existed, and could again exist, a greater civic solidarity born of responsibility to one's brother awakened by Christian love.
Recently I had a conversation in which a convert to Catholicism remarked that his Protestant faith had always emphasized the need to do real good to people with tough love that would challenge them to improve their lot. As he made his way into the Catholic Church, he noticed that there was a greater emphasis on Christ in the poor that never seemed to be a part of his formation as a Protestant. He found himself reading Scripture passages such as “whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did to me” (Mt 25:40) with fresh eyes. Certainly one cannot learn about the witness of St. Teresa of Calcutta or St. Vincent de Paul without having a sense that this deep truth has yet to inform the way we approach the poor in our midst, one this man rightfully pointed to as a point of conversion for all, Catholic or otherwise.
Yet as a Catholic, I cannot help but wonder if our church, in general, couldn’t use a little more nineteenth-century Protestant savvy in organizing and administering our charitable deeds, and read passages such as “If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thess 3:10) with fresh eyes.
I came across this book in a passing reference of a contemporary conservative pundit and pot-stirrer in an interview:
Is it possible to be a good Christian and sincerely believe, as Jim Wallis does, that a bigger welfare state and higher taxes to fund it is the best way in a complex modern society for us to fulfill our Gospel obligation to help the poor?
It's possible, but not likely. Confiscatory taxation enforced by threat of imprisonment is "stealing," a practice strongly frowned upon by our Creator. If all Christians and Jews tithed their income as the Bible commands, every poor person would be cared for, every naked person clothed and every hungry person fed. Read Marvin Olasky's "The Tragedy Of American Compassion" for further discussion of this.
(I'll let you speculate as to who's being interviewed.)
My interest was piqued, as I've recently been assigned to serving in one of the poorest areas of Kansas City, KS, and I read the book pretty quickly. I was amazed by what was described therein, quickly discovering that "The Tragedy of American Compassion is the recounting of an American history that today’s Americans never learned."
Olasky traces the devolution of attitudes toward the poor and needy from the personal and communal approach of the American colonies--one that was developed out of necessity during the hardscrabble years of settling the continent--into the universal welfare we are all too familiar with today. His claim is that as Americans became more aware of the inefficiencies of personal and communal charity, often driven by Christian conviction, and as social movements insisted that aid come with no strings attached, they abandoned charity in favor of social welfare administered by government officials. The "tragedy" Olasky portrays is one in which our desire for a more perfect solution to poverty destroyed the real achievements of what had done throughout American history to address it.
The starting point for anyone interested in these questions should be that poverty continues to afflict our nation despite having untold trillions of dollars thrown at it throughout the last 40 years. The American underclass of government dependents has only grown, not diminished, though 100 years ago what qualified as "poverty" was much more like true destitution than now. As Charles Murray summarizes,
Marvin Olasky’s central truth: Human needs were answered by other human beings, not by bureaucracies, and the response to those needs was not compartmentalized. People didn’t used to be so foolish as to think that providing food would cure anything except hunger, nor so shallow as to think that physical hunger was more important than the other human hungers, nor so blind as to ignore the interaction between the way that one helps and the effects of that help on the human spirit and human behavior.
I am reminded of the account Grover Cleveland gave for his veto of the 1880 Texas Seed Bill. After a drought had ruined crops in several Texas counties, Congress appropriated $10,000 to purchase seed grain for farmers there. In his veto message, he espoused a theory of limited government:
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
The great value of this book is the perceptive analysis Olasky provides of what worked in past times. The seven marks of compassion that emerged from his historical study are: Affiliation, Bonding, Categorization, Discernment, Employment, Freedom, and God. I won't detail them here, but suffice to say, he is able to not just criticize the status quo but make a compelling case for how American attitudes and practices toward the poor can drastically improve.
What I found most interesting of all was what Olasky identifies as the theological genesis of the shift from personal and communal service of the poor to state-led bureaucratic distribution of "entitlements." To be more specific, he identifies an anthropological error that is an explicit denial of the doctrine of original sin:
In particular, the new social understanding attacked the biblical concept of a sinful human nature. Man’s basic nature was not corrupt, but good; there were sins but not sin, evil acts but not evil. Problems arose from social conditions rather than inherent moral corruption. The Encyclopedia of Social Reform stated that “almost all social thinkers are now agreed that the social evils of the day arise in large part from social wrongs… A good environment would save all. Compassion meant accepting wrongful activity and postponing any pressure to change until the person was in a good environment" (pp. 136-7).
A more sober judgment of human nature should dwell upon the inherent tendency to indolence, deception, and serving one's self-interest with which we are all familiar. In the words of 19th century social worker Frederic Almy, “alms are like drugs, and are as dangerous,” for often “they create an appetite which is more harmful than the pain which they relieve" (p. 112). That appetite is for the rewards of labor without labor. Olasky paints a picture of American individualism that is not so preoccupied with gain that it forgets to encourage dependent or poverty-stricken neighbors to practice the habits that might eventually lead to their eventual self-sufficiency, nor to offer them spiritual sustenance as the most necessary encouragement of all. I found this portrait a moving one, which softens my hazy sense the post-industrialized American way of gritty competition and profiteering. Certainly these things were common in that era, as they are now. But I am aware of the ways in which there existed, and could again exist, a greater civic solidarity born of responsibility to one's brother awakened by Christian love.
Recently I had a conversation in which a convert to Catholicism remarked that his Protestant faith had always emphasized the need to do real good to people with tough love that would challenge them to improve their lot. As he made his way into the Catholic Church, he noticed that there was a greater emphasis on Christ in the poor that never seemed to be a part of his formation as a Protestant. He found himself reading Scripture passages such as “whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did to me” (Mt 25:40) with fresh eyes. Certainly one cannot learn about the witness of St. Teresa of Calcutta or St. Vincent de Paul without having a sense that this deep truth has yet to inform the way we approach the poor in our midst, one this man rightfully pointed to as a point of conversion for all, Catholic or otherwise.
Yet as a Catholic, I cannot help but wonder if our church, in general, couldn’t use a little more nineteenth-century Protestant savvy in organizing and administering our charitable deeds, and read passages such as “If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thess 3:10) with fresh eyes.
July 29, 2013
This book has no data to support his claims, rendering it into a very long opinion piece, lifestyle preference over policy suggestions. Yet it's treated as the latter. The first few chapters are unreadable, just anecdotes and quotes from the turn of the century. When he does introduce data in the later chapters he misrepresents it. For example he writes that, "children almost always are poor because they do not have fathers living with and supporting them." I checked his citation, which stated that the poverty rate for intact families was 5.6 percent, as opposed to female-headed families which was 33.5%.
1)Even if that were a valid conclusion, in which world does 1/3= "almost always"?
2)A basic rule of stats is that correlation does not imply causation. Just because 2 things go together does not mean one causes the other. There could be any number of other contributing factors, or one may cause the other but the order could be reversed. A wet sidewalk causes rain because every time my sidewalk is wet it's a rainy day.
Later he acknowledges that, "A poor woman is most likely to escape poverty if she does not get pregnant." but he never addresses the issue of contraception access, he just argues to get rid of welfare to encourage men to marry the women they impregnate. As if it's really that simple.
Overall this book is full of idealistic philosophy and magical thinking over anything concrete or useful. The only part I did agree with is his call to make government assistance something discouraged rather than something common that people feel entitled to, "a hand up instead of a handout" kind of attitude. Working in social field for 10 years I did sometimes feel like we were enabling people by making it too easy and not expecting anything from them, but that was the minority of cases and is no reason to dispose of the whole system altogether.
Here's the only useful quote from his book:
"... We are likely to be stingy with whatever is most valuable to us: perhaps money, but often time and smiles... A professor wh9o gives high grades to mediocre papers, so that students will go away happy and he need not explain how they erred, is stingy. Parents who give their children Nintendos and Turbographic 16s but do not walk wit them by the roadside and play games with them on the dining room table are stingy."
There. I just saved you the time of reading it.
1)Even if that were a valid conclusion, in which world does 1/3= "almost always"?
2)A basic rule of stats is that correlation does not imply causation. Just because 2 things go together does not mean one causes the other. There could be any number of other contributing factors, or one may cause the other but the order could be reversed. A wet sidewalk causes rain because every time my sidewalk is wet it's a rainy day.
Later he acknowledges that, "A poor woman is most likely to escape poverty if she does not get pregnant." but he never addresses the issue of contraception access, he just argues to get rid of welfare to encourage men to marry the women they impregnate. As if it's really that simple.
Overall this book is full of idealistic philosophy and magical thinking over anything concrete or useful. The only part I did agree with is his call to make government assistance something discouraged rather than something common that people feel entitled to, "a hand up instead of a handout" kind of attitude. Working in social field for 10 years I did sometimes feel like we were enabling people by making it too easy and not expecting anything from them, but that was the minority of cases and is no reason to dispose of the whole system altogether.
Here's the only useful quote from his book:
"... We are likely to be stingy with whatever is most valuable to us: perhaps money, but often time and smiles... A professor wh9o gives high grades to mediocre papers, so that students will go away happy and he need not explain how they erred, is stingy. Parents who give their children Nintendos and Turbographic 16s but do not walk wit them by the roadside and play games with them on the dining room table are stingy."
There. I just saved you the time of reading it.
May 8, 2016
The author takes you on a trip throughout the history of charity/welfare worldwide.
He provides specific examples of private charity in the 18th and 19th centuries in the US. This changed rather dramatically in the 1930s during the Great Depression. The argument, led by social workers, was that private charity was insufficient and crowding out government's "mandate" to provide for the needy. This set the stage for many government programs. This was expanded again in the 1960s during the civil rights movement.
According to the author, these excesses contributed to the breakdown of the family unit. The father of the family ended up many times being the government leading to more out of wedlock births and more divorces. When the government is providing income or welfare, there's less reason for a two parent household. In fact, it can make it more costly because higher incomes reduce the possible amount of welfare. There are many great examples in this book.
A move towards private charity and away from government welfare that is costly and ineffective in most cases would be the best path towards improving families and greater compassion.
I thought the book moved rather slow and possibly had too many examples, but overall I enjoyed reading this book. Check it out for yourself.
He provides specific examples of private charity in the 18th and 19th centuries in the US. This changed rather dramatically in the 1930s during the Great Depression. The argument, led by social workers, was that private charity was insufficient and crowding out government's "mandate" to provide for the needy. This set the stage for many government programs. This was expanded again in the 1960s during the civil rights movement.
According to the author, these excesses contributed to the breakdown of the family unit. The father of the family ended up many times being the government leading to more out of wedlock births and more divorces. When the government is providing income or welfare, there's less reason for a two parent household. In fact, it can make it more costly because higher incomes reduce the possible amount of welfare. There are many great examples in this book.
A move towards private charity and away from government welfare that is costly and ineffective in most cases would be the best path towards improving families and greater compassion.
I thought the book moved rather slow and possibly had too many examples, but overall I enjoyed reading this book. Check it out for yourself.
November 19, 2008
Olasky outlines the history of 'compassion' for the downtrodden in the U.S. starting at the outset of the new nation. He outlines how the help came from neighbors, then from work houses and groups of people to, finally, the public coffers. This migration is not new. The English already had a form of welfare state at the founding of this nation. The fathers of our nation found it distasteful and damaging to those it was design to help. Look at us now!
Mr. Olasky took on the role of a homeless man and visited various 'soup kitchens' and other providers for the homeless. What he found was that few cared to even know his name. Help, even at such an oasis, is largely impersonal and distant. He concludes this is inevitable when a very few individuals serve large numbers. These servants cannot possibly become personally involved. The concept of 'compassion' (latin = "to suffer with") is lost as a result.
He does not cover what I have observed in the Church. It is much more common now to have financial needs get addressed by a benevolence committee, or some similar group within churches, rather than from individuals. In this, too, we miss the mark....in my opinion.
Mr. Olasky took on the role of a homeless man and visited various 'soup kitchens' and other providers for the homeless. What he found was that few cared to even know his name. Help, even at such an oasis, is largely impersonal and distant. He concludes this is inevitable when a very few individuals serve large numbers. These servants cannot possibly become personally involved. The concept of 'compassion' (latin = "to suffer with") is lost as a result.
He does not cover what I have observed in the Church. It is much more common now to have financial needs get addressed by a benevolence committee, or some similar group within churches, rather than from individuals. In this, too, we miss the mark....in my opinion.
March 5, 2012
Olasky writes in great and well documented detail of the origins of welfare in America, and shows how welfare that works has seven major elements to it: affiliation with families, neighbors or ethnic groups; bonding with volunteers; careful categorization along with the realization that charities did not have to treat everyone equally; discernment on the part of charity workers, realizing the deviousness of the human heart, to prevent fraud; long-term employment of all able-bodied household heads; the freedom to work (the opportunity for upward mobility) and worship without governmental interference; and one's relationship to God. The author also takes great care to show how the meaning of "compassion" has been corrupted from suffering with someone in need to basically a governmental handout.
Frankly, while I see small pockets of light in the darkness, I don't forsee great changes in the entitlement state we're currently in. Already in the USA, barely 50% of the population pay income taxes, while the rest pay nothing at all, and getting them to pay will be VERY difficult.
Frankly, while I see small pockets of light in the darkness, I don't forsee great changes in the entitlement state we're currently in. Already in the USA, barely 50% of the population pay income taxes, while the rest pay nothing at all, and getting them to pay will be VERY difficult.
July 15, 2012
This book is essential for anyone who wants to understand the history of American "compassion" to the poor. But more broadly, it is important to understand why "doing more" (or to move "forward" as Obama suggests), especially when "more" means furthering the expansion of government bureaucracy and involvement, is actually counterproductive and damaging to the poor. Personal aid with conditions (willing to work and reform character etc.) is the old style of American compassion rooted in the idea that human nature is corrupt and needs reformation. The new system thinks that man is basically good and that society is the cause of laziness, addiction and idleness. This idea led to unconditional aid, and the creation and expansion of programs. Ultimately, this also led to dependency and pauperism. This book will add understanding of politics, sociology, theology, history and theology. It is short and concise. Well worth the time.
July 15, 2018
May 2014 Not sure if I will finish this book. It's a bit repetitive.
Does offer an important perspective that good intentions aren't enough.
Catalogs a number of the private efforts to address poverty prior to the Progressive Era of Big Government. These efforts were much more effective: small. local groups which insisted on constructive, real, personal interactions which were more meaningful for both recipient and volunteer; holding recipients accountable for action and often sig. change -- but one is still left with the question of whether this model would be scalable and if it would continue to work in our large urban areas today.
I hope these points are addressed and will see if I can finish the book.
It's a crucial issue for us to come to grips with -- esp. in light of the recent revival of the cult government as the solution to inequality.
7/13/14 This one is going back on the self. Too many others that are more enticing.
Does offer an important perspective that good intentions aren't enough.
Catalogs a number of the private efforts to address poverty prior to the Progressive Era of Big Government. These efforts were much more effective: small. local groups which insisted on constructive, real, personal interactions which were more meaningful for both recipient and volunteer; holding recipients accountable for action and often sig. change -- but one is still left with the question of whether this model would be scalable and if it would continue to work in our large urban areas today.
I hope these points are addressed and will see if I can finish the book.
It's a crucial issue for us to come to grips with -- esp. in light of the recent revival of the cult government as the solution to inequality.
7/13/14 This one is going back on the self. Too many others that are more enticing.
February 14, 2012
This book shows how voluntary charity, as opposed through charity where alms are obtained through the point of a gun, are demonstrably better for society. There is a lot of citations in this book, which thoroughly documents the authors research on the topic. With such a body of evidence as collected by the author, it is hard to understand why the author draws the conclusion he does. This book, by far, provides the most comprehensive study of voluntary charity in the United States that I have ever seen.
July 12, 2007
yeah, it's such a tragedy... americans are so compassionate that we deserve the world's sympathy... whatever.
the guy's point is that the american government is too blunt a tool to address poverty... great-- well observed. but that doesn't mean it's compassionate for the government to STOP mitigating the effects of poverty for its people-- it just means that we (the people) should step up until the government doesn't need to anymore.
the guy's point is that the american government is too blunt a tool to address poverty... great-- well observed. but that doesn't mean it's compassionate for the government to STOP mitigating the effects of poverty for its people-- it just means that we (the people) should step up until the government doesn't need to anymore.
November 21, 2017
Outstanding treatment of the transformation of aid to the poor in America from private, personal, accountable, effective and tethered to spiritual transformation, to the poverty-sustaining government and statist-driven models that began in the early 20th century but really came into force in the 60s. Helpful and inspiring read.
Read
August 2, 2011This is one of the most thought provoking books I've read...not that I agree with it....but that is what a good book does...it makes you better by thinking about how you think and act. This is incredibly important for those of us serving in compassionate ministry or anything related....Such a great book
August 27, 2021
This was a very informative look at charity towards the homeless and unfortunate in American society. The book spans from the 18th century charity through the 1990s welfare system in America. While this book is mostly an overview of history, it does offer some applications especially for Christians today. The writer offers that most people have lost their compassion in giving, and often look to the material side of things when they should be offering spiritual help as well.
The first settlers in America helped out the struggling citizens, and did so with kind intentions. Somewhere along the line, the greater good for our fellow man got left behind. Olasky states: “It’s time to learn from the warm hearts and hard heads of earlier times, and to bring that understanding into our lives.”
The first settlers in America helped out the struggling citizens, and did so with kind intentions. Somewhere along the line, the greater good for our fellow man got left behind. Olasky states: “It’s time to learn from the warm hearts and hard heads of earlier times, and to bring that understanding into our lives.”
August 7, 2016
This book is almost a quarter of a century old - and more relevant today that when it was written. The US has become so "compassionate" as a nation that our government-enforced "kindness" has destroyed those truly in need by making them helpless and dependent, and encouraged those who are lazy and dishonest to work "the system" for every penny they can get. Further, corrupt politicians have multiplied the ways they can now "buy" the votes of these people, or continue to receive the huge "campaign contributions" from their corporate, union or other lobby interests via government programs. Almost no one in DC actually wants to fix the problems now. The "Tragedy" is about to turn into a catastrophe unlike the world has ever witnessed before.
August 30, 2007
Olasky paints a pretty grim history of the evolution of social welfare in America. I found it to be well researched, but unquestionably bias in its presentation of "facts". Some the programs he deems as successes (e.g., Charles Brace's Orphan Trains) are widely regarded as ultimately harmful policy. His arguments dovetail to advocate for social libertarianism - that the "protestant work ethic" has been obliterated by years of government "handouts". While I find myself in opposition to his views, the book is well researched and presents a different lens with which to view social welfare in America.
March 10, 2018
Extremely valid and noteworthy, even 25 years after it's publishing. The basic ideas are that government handouts, rather than solving a problem, actually create more of that problem by taking away personal responsibility, and that churches are a far better answer to social problems than government bureaucracies as they offer hands-on help whereby providers can evaluate the type of help needed rather than just offer a blanket, one size fits all approach.
Those of us who've seen big government and the church at work KNOW these things are true! More people need to understand them.
Those of us who've seen big government and the church at work KNOW these things are true! More people need to understand them.
January 1, 2008
This book had many salient points, but it was slow plodding. People so rarely realize that "conservatives" and "liberals" have the same desire: to see people prosper; we just disagree on how that is best achieved. This book shows how well-meaning compassion, when expressed through state welfare and preferences, can hurt the poor in the long run.
January 18, 2011
A great book about the history of state welfare and organized charity and it's documented effectiveness at relieving poverty (or lack thereof). A really interesting book that traces the effects of indescriminate charity and how it affects the recipiants. The author demonstrates that welfare and indescriminate charity do more harm than good. A real amazing book!
February 14, 2012
I expected a book providing evidence of how private charity is superior to public charity. But "The Tragedy of American Compassion" goes even further, showing how even private charity frequently fails when it is impersonal and requires nothing on the part of able recipients.
October 24, 2013
Dull, repetitive, and no secrets. Agree with ideas that the nation's charity cases were better off before government made an industry out of welfare. Unearned benefits and entitlements breed senses of entitlement and are self perpetuating and magnifying.
January 24, 2016
Interesting look at welfare and "compassion" in the United States. I don't know if I agree with everything written in the book, but it is well researched and certainly makes one re-think their stance on welfare.
June 11, 2009
I'm putting this book aside for now. I will pick it up again in the Spring during this component in school.
September 5, 2008
A very detailed historical insight into the highs and lows of American compassion for the poor and needy.
December 11, 2008
Read this when I was considering going into public administration
September 10, 2012
Good information for the most part. Far too simplistic in the diagnosis for my taste. Worth reading because of its influence, of nothing else.
February 20, 2014
5 stars = Yearly re-read
4 stars = Re-read eventually
3 stars = Very Good
2 stars = OK
1 stars = Pass on this one.
0 stars = Couldn't finish it.
4 stars = Re-read eventually
3 stars = Very Good
2 stars = OK
1 stars = Pass on this one.
0 stars = Couldn't finish it.
May 30, 2014
Essential history of American anti-poverty programs, their original religious inspiration and their present-day socialistic corruption.
June 20, 2016
Liked it but it was repetitive. Great for academic study but certainly not a light read. If you want to learn more about the history of the U.S. Welfare system it's worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews