Gingrich, as always, offered a reading list: “The Tragedy of American Compassion,” by Marvin Olasky, which chronicles an explosion of charitable giving in the late 19th century. He might easily have added Gertrude Himmelfarb’s new book, “The De-Moralization of Society,” which argues that Victorian attitudes toward charity – and poverty – were not only admirable but quite successful. Such views are easily mocked. Dickens trumps Himmelfarb. But one wonders what Dickens would have done with Joycelyn Elders, Donna Shalala and your local, insensate welfare office. Poverty seems more desperate, intractable and amoral now than it did a hundred years ago – when, as Himmelfarb shows, rates of pauperism, crime and illegitimacy were in steady, long-term decline. The old ways – a society-wide insistence on moral behavior and exemplary acts – may be the best way to lift the poor. But there is a problem: the Victorian charitable explosion occurred at a moment when living standards were soaring and when there were far fewer distractions. We don’t seem to have the time, or the inclination, for altruism anymore.
Indeed, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction: the number of volunteers for groups like the Boy Scouts and Red Cross has plummeted in the last 20 years. PTA participation is way down. The fraternal orders are waning. Even bowling leagues are in decline – people prefer to bowl alone – Harvard professor Robert Putnam writes in an elegant article for the Journal of Democracy. Putnam attributes these phenomena to several factors: less time (women go to work now), increased mobility (people are less likely to put down social roots) and of course – television. Gingrich disagrees. He believes the aggrandizement of the bureaucracy has made families and communities less relevant. “People don’t go to PTA meetings,” he says, “because they don’t like professional bureaucrats telling them how useless they are. When you emasculate citizens, you can’t expect them to be very enthusiastic about participating.”
But even if you empower citizens – as Gingrich might say – Putnam’s other factors won’t go away. This isn’t the 19th century. And where’s Wesley? If the welfare state is to be scrapped and privatized, civil society will need steroids. Gingrich wants a tax credit for charitable contributions. Fair enough. But more will be needed. No doubt, state and local governments can “nonprofitize” many services – that is, pay private charities to do things formerly done by bureaucrats. There is no reason social workers need to be public employees. But perhaps the most creative – indeed, virtuous – role government can play would be to provide charitable institutions with a steady stream of young, altruistic, energetic, exemplary (and cheap) workers. In fact, a government program recently has begun to do just that, and with great promise: national service.
“Everyone talks about unfunded mandates – things Washington requires the states and cities to do,” says Eli Siegal, the director of Americorps. “We’re the exact opposite: a funded nonmandate.” The states decide whether to participate, and which local programs to fund. There are now about 20,000 young people working (at minimum wage, while repaying $4,725 in college loans per year of service) in 350 nonprofit programs nationally.
Last week, I called around to various private groups who’ve been using the volunteers, and their reports were uniformly enthusiastic. “They’ve come into the community and done far more than we asked or expected,” says Dawn Taylor of the Stormbreak Youth Shelter in State College, Pa. (which runs, among other things – Newt should note – a group home for troubled teens). “Their job is to tutor the young people, but they’re not content with that. They’ve helped with fund-raising telethons and lots of other programs,” expanding the scope of charitable activities in the county. “They are so enthusiastic and energetic. And there are a lot more ways we’d like to use them, if we could.” Unfortunately, she can’t: Americorps volunteers can’t supplant existing public employees, a regulation that Republicans should jettison if they choose to continue this program. (There is no reason why national service shouldn’t bite off great chunks of the civil service.)
But the Republicans may not continue it. “I am totally, unequivocally opposed to national service,” Gingrich says. “It is coerced voluntarism . . . It’s gimmickry.” These are spurious, knee-jerk arguments. National service is induced – not coerced – voluntarism, just as his tax credit for charity would be. And, gimmickry? As if term limits and balanced-budget amendments weren’t polyester legislative shortcuts. Programs that work are miracles, not gimmicks. There will be a fight over this. But expect the House Appropriations Committee to follow the speaker’s lead and kill national service – which seems the political equivalent of drowning a puppy.
