Is Volunteerism Enough; D Bandow

Potomac Principles Is Voluntarism Enough? A s the Age of Politics (historian Paul Johnson's label for the twentieth cen tury) winds down, even liberals are champi oning civil society. Herds of politicians now say that families and communities, not gov ernments, hold the answer to America's social problems. At the very least, they advocate private-public "partnerships," rather than grand new government social programs. To promote such service the Summit for America's Future convened in April. Repre sentatives from volunteer organizations, busi nesses, and churches, along with local gov ernments and Indian tribes, gathered in Philadelphia to, in the words of the sponsors, mobilize "millions of citizens and thousands of organizations from all sectors of society in order to ensure that every young American has access to resources considered essential for achievinghealthy, fulfillingand productive lives." In response companies promised money, services, and products to nonprofit enterprises.

Enlisting civil society to help mentor and tutor at-risk youth, improve health care, sup port families, assist elder-care and more is obviously a good thing. As long as it is truly voluntary. The distinction is important, since the government has a way of making invol untary the supposedly voluntary. For instance, the state of Maryland and a number of local school districts require stuMr. Bandow, a nationallysyndicatedcolumnist,is a seniorfellowat the CatoInstituteand the authorand editor of severalbooks, including Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World. by Doug Handow dents to "volunteer" in order to receive a diploma from high school. Some Summit attendees, led bythe President, supported this attempt to make compassion compulsory, the worst sort of oxymoron imaginable. It makes a mockery of the Summit's very premise. Similarly, proposals abound to use the tax law to bludgeon business into doing what government considers to be "responsible"

behavior. Some advocates of this approach would add voluntarism to their indicia of corporate responsibility. But "philanthropy" motivated by such threats would be extortion, not voluntarism. Even truly voluntary contributions are viewed by many firms more as a tool of public relations than an exercise of moral responsi bility. However, that doesn't diminish the good that can be done bybusiness. Companies have an enormous capacity to aid those around them. Nevertheless, encouraging firms to volun tarily drop a few dollars on the less fortunate should not blind us to the most important issue. Government stands in the way of help ing the needy at almost every turn. Business performs its most important ser vice to the poor by doing what it is constituted to do: employ people and provide goods and services.To the extent that it does so success fully, it will reduce the incidence of poverty and alleviate attendant social problems.

Moreover, as business succeeds, it generates wealth for others-workers in related indus tries, pensioners, and more. Not that politicians ever understand. Ob477 478 THE FREEMAN • AUGUST 1997 serves T.l. Rodgers, president and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, over the last two decades "government meddling [has] metas tasized to the point that business can no longer provide workers with ever-higher wages." No one gains when the state grows in this way. Notes Rodgers, "subordinating shareholder value to 'social responsibility' invariably cheats both shareholders and society at large." Government meddling most hurts those low-cost, labor-intensive enterprises which provide employment and services to poor communities. The minimum wage puts un skilled employees out of work. Local public transportation monopolies forbid inexpensive jitneys that enable lower-income people to find and hold jobs. Burdensome zoning re quirements and building codes, special interest licensing laws, and other regulations impede the development of small businesses that are critical for lifting people out of poverty through work.

Thus, political leaders concerned about the disadvantaged should eliminate barriers to business doing what it does best. This isn't enough, however. In many cases government is to blame for the problems in the first place. Before exhorting others to help, public offi cials should get their own policies right. Consider education. Illiteracy is rife among inner-city kids, so volunteers are now sup posed to teach students to read. But how about dealing with a public educational sys tem that is turning out illiterates? The answer here is really not voluntarism, but privatiza tion: parents should be able to choose among competitive educational alternatives, ensur ing that their kids end up able not onlyto read, but to learn the values necessary to become responsible citizens in a free republic. Yet the politicians who speak loudest about helping the poor most strongly resist even any change in the public school monopoly.

People devoted to the poor also need to help shift the perception that responsibility for solvingsocial problems lies with the state, and eliminate the barriers now created by government to individual, family, and com munity initiative. For most of America's early history, people recognized that they had a moral (and religious) duty to care for those in need. As Marvin Olasky, author of The Trag edyofAmerican Compassion,points out, com passion meant "to sufferwith." To fulfillone's responsibilities as a citizen and a human being required involvement in the lives of others. Since then, however, people have taken compassion to mean, first, writing a check, and more recently, making other people write checks. Indeed, in response to President Clin ton's call on every church to employ one person now on welfare, the Reverend Albert Pennybacker of the National Council of Churches argued that "Our job is not to compensate for the failure of government to do its job."

But the Reverend Pennybacker has it all wrong. The Biblical model is clear: the able bodied are to work and support themselves and their families;churches are to nurture, aid, and empower their members; finally,people of faith are to "do good to all people" (Gal. 6:10). The fundamental Christian duty is responsibil ity for themselvesand charity to others. To the extent government has a role, it is as the ultimatesafetynet to catchthosefallingthrough mUltiple private ones. Political society should act only when civil societyfails to do so. Many people still do serve: nearly half of the adult population volunteers, spending an average of 4.2 hours a week in service activ ities. But the Reverend Pennybackers of the world have been willing to slough significant responsibility off on government, which, as the most imperialistic of institutions, has avidlyfilled the void. Thus, politicians serious about restoring civil society must say "no more." Public officials would do more for voluntarism by emphasizing the primacy of private assistance and the moral responsibility of every human being for his or her needy neighbors than attending summits.

Equally important, policymakers should reform government policies that discourage voluntarism and impede community develop ment. Mother Teresa's religious order dropped a planned AIDS facility because New York City insisted that the building include a costly and unnecessary elevator. Labeling requirements in Los Angeles pre vent restaurants from givingfood awayto the "FROM SMALL BEGINNINGS": THE ROAD TO GENOCIDE 479 homeless. The federal government threatened to put SalvationArmyrehabilitation centers out of business when it proposed applying the minimum wage law to participants. Well-publicized volunteer programs are a staple of politics. A succession of presidents have undertaken one or more such initiatives. But, like the much ballyhooed "Hands Across America" more than a decade ago, none has had much impact. Today's Summit participants must reach deeper issues to ensure that the latest effort doesn't go the same way. Rewarding the successful who throw alms to the poor is fine.