Can't allow them to challenge our position

Almost a week ago I wrote a post about conservatives who consider building community with the poor to be immoral. Since then I've been pondering the question, Why? I was able to organize my thoughts while on my bicycle this afternoon -- yes, it was warm enough (about 60F) and dry enough to pump up the tires and head out.

The question again: Why do conservatives believe that building community is immoral?

Let's first dispense with Christianity being a reason. More than a year ago I examined the issue of a tax structure designed to specifically underfund schools in minority communities. Author Susan Pace Hamill documented the problem, then listed all the verses in the Bible that command rich believers to take care of the poor. It is a long list. While Christianity (as it is supposed to be practiced) isn't a reason the rich could be following a version of Christianity corrupted by some outside force. Which means we should look at that outside force.

A slight detour before proceeding. Back in October I wrote about some versions of Christianity focus on the confession of sins, making adherents feel rather disgusted with themselves. A way of alleviating that pain is to say, "At least we aren't as bad as them." That forms the foundation of a great deal of prejudice. Warning: my friend and debate partner found that post to be confusing (rare for my writing, he says). Then again, it dealt with Christian concepts with which he isn't familiar.

Prompted by the writings of Terrence Heath I've written that many conservatives believe that one's moral worth matches one's wealth. The richer you are, the more moral you are. If you are poor, it is because of a failing in morality. I've written about this more than once, but don't have a handy link.

One reason why the link between money and morality sticks around is that it helps rich people cope with having so much money. They have it (they say to themselves) because they deserve it. They are a better person than those who don't have money. And the poor don't have it because they don't deserve it.

But labeling the poor as immoral is not the same as saying it is also immoral to help them not be poor. To take that step we turn to what I've been calling a Power. This is an institution or a group of people who wield influence, privilege, or control over others and will use violence (physical, mental, spiritual, economic) to maintain that control. Here's a shortcut: If violence is involved, there is a Power trying to maintain its position.

The upcoming Conclave in Rome highlights the Catholic Church as a Power, using spiritual violence (believe as we tell you or you go to Hell) to maintain their position (yes, other Christian denominations also act as Powers). The Power that is of concern in this discussion is (as you expect) conservatives. They have long believed they are supposed to be in charge. and the current GOP embodies that belief.

And through that recognition we answer my big question. It is immoral for us (or the federal gov't) to help the poor because that will allow them to challenge our position as top dog, which was given to us by (our) god.

Some more examples of Powers:

On Friday evening I finally went to a movie theater to see the movie Lincoln. It was a satisfying cinematic experience. I hope it becomes well used in classrooms across the country. If you haven't seen it, do so soon (then look it up on imdb.com and check out the goofs). The story is about Abe Lincoln challenging the Power of white supremacy. Though he gets the 13th Amendment to outlaw slavery, that Power kills him (though that link isn't explored in the film).

Last week Nihad Sirees wrote a history of Bashar Al-Assad for Newsweek. The current tyrant's father, Hafez, came to rule by constructing a far-reaching Power. All that Power was supposed to Bashar's brother, but the guy died before the father did. So the Power was pushed into Bashar's hands. According to this article Bashar didn't particularly want it and didn't want the brutality that came with the job. But he is stuck. Soften the Power and he loses all the privilege that comes with the Power -- his party and ethnic group are a minority. Just as important, the other members of the party lose their privilege if Bashar softens the Power. He is either a brutal dictator, or he is nothing.

Doonesbury takes a look at Power through a discussion with character Jim "Honest Man" Andrews. Can voter suppression, gerrymandering, roll purges, ID laws, early voter cutbacks, and unequal funding get the job done for the GOP or will they have to double down on election rigging?