Can Politicians Really Care? T. Machan

by Tibor R. Machan W hat does it mean for a politician to care? "Caring" is, after all, what some people believe politicians ought to be, first and foremost. But what does it mean, to care? In ordinary English caring means making it one's own concern when someone needs some thing. Thus, if I care about the plight of the col oreds and blacks in South Africa, I make their lot my personal concern. I try to help them alleviate their oppressive circumstances. If I care about my neighbor, I make it my business to look into his situation and help him cope with it. What does caring for someone involve? First, it requires a clear understanding of his specific situation. At least that is what would be required for caring effectively. There is another kind of "caring," more closely akin to curiosity than to helping. It is more emotional than active. When so many commentators want to test whether political candidates care, do they have in mind the kind of caring that makes a difference? Or does the care involved amount to little more than showing emotion?

In most cases what politicians mean by caring is nothing more than giving some evidence of emotional sympathy with the lot of some bloc of voters. What else could they do? How could even the president of the United States of America actually help people other than those whom he knows personally? That is part of the tragedy of being in the segment of society that is in near-per manent dire straits. What researchers such as Charles Murray, in Tibor Machan is a philosophy teacher. He was smuggled out of Communist Hungary in 1953 and has lived in the United States since 1956. his book Losing Ground, have finally brought to our attention is that welfare simply does not work. Not only is it stealing from Peter to subsi dize Paul, but welfare is making things worse for the people who need the help most. Government welfare must function in an impersonal fashion. But not knowing the recipients of welfare means not knowing their histories, personalities, charac ters, and circumstances.

Since human beings are individuals, not simply members of some group-blacks, women, Hispan ics, teenagers, the poor, the middle class-they require unique help in even the most familiar situ ations of need. Even disaster victims seem best aided by voluntary groups. Witness how quickly the Red Cross and various church organizations produced millions of dollars of relief and donated goods in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. The ways in which these and other kinds of help ought to be delivered-when, where, by what means, in what shape, with what words-all would have to be evident to someone who really intends to care effectively,rather than merely show sympathy by introducing bill upon bill in the Senate or the House of Representatives and voting to appropri ate other people's money to pay for them. The only way a politician can show genuine care is by making certain that government pro tects individual rights. It should be an easy task, because there is one thing we all need: respect for our human rights. In that we are all alike, and politicians need not know us personally in order to be caring. Perhaps some politician will emerge who will genuinely care for us and devote himself to securing our basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. D 425 BankingWithoutthe "Too-Big-to-Fail"Doctrine by Richard M. Salsman S ince the failure of Continental Illinois in 1984, the U.S. government has pursued a deliberate policy of bailing out large com mercial banks deemed "too-big-to-fail."l The "too-big-to-fail" doctrine has arisen not simply because of the growing number of bank failures in the past decade, though indeed failures have increased. In fact, the doctrine's historical ori gins go back much further than a decade. More than 40 years ago, a 1950 amendment to the Fed eral Deposit Insurance Act of 1934introduced the "essentiality doctrine." As codified, that doctrine states that in its sole discretion the government can rescue any failed bank when "continued operation of such bank is essential to provide adequate bank ing service in the community."2 None of the key terms in that provision-such as "essential," "ade quate," or "community"-has ever been defined, permitting arbitrary discretion to rule. Coupled with the diminishing financial condition of banks in subsequent decades, the "essentiality doctrine"