Customer Reviews

The Samaritan's Dilemma: Should Government Help Your Neighbor?

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I use Stone's excellent "Policy Paradox" in teaching classes on public policy, so looked forward to reading this meditation on the role of government in society and our political system. It surpassed my high expectations going in. Very readable: completely free of academic jargon, and a wonderful mix of thought-provoking points and engaging stories kept my interest throughout. At the book's heart is a deceptively simple--and vital--question: how and when should we help our neighbor? And who, if anyone, should do so when I'm unable/unwilling? Stone convinced me that our current answers, rooted in a false spirit of "self-reliance," are poorly thought-out and, too often, downright cruel. I'm a fiscal conservative, but her account of what we the people collectively (i.e., our government) should do for one another in times of need left me both profoundly moved and ready to help. A genuinely important book, by a national treasure of an author.

This book, better than any other piece of journalism that I have seen, lays out clearly and shockingly, all in one place, the way we as a society were led down the path of mistrust and the politics of scarcity over the past half century. It is mind-blowing even to someone who is well-educated and reflective like myself to have all this put together in one place, to see how the United States of America turned so dramatically from the legacy of FDR and LBJ to the path of Reaganomics along which even our one Democratic president during the time since Reagan also trod. The book should be required in all public policy, ethics, political science, philospophy, and ethics classes at every college and university, undergraduate and graduate progam, in the country! I did not support Obama for President (was a Hillary supporter), but after reading this I see why he won the nomination -- he knows how to speak the language of altruism and morality that Stone articulates so well in her many examples offered throughout the book. Somehow, if we are to survive as a society and a political entity/nation, we MUST get back to the recognition of our mutual interdependence and away from the politics of fear-mongering and threatened scarcity that conservatives have been so good at for so long. We are coming apart at the seams; this book helps explain why.

Deborah Stone's Samaritan's Dilemma is a wise book that we all need to take seriously. Extremely well-written, highly readable, it is also well-researched. While based on the best available social science, it practices what it preaches: it exercises real care for its subject matter. Stone obviously cares deeply about the topic. She not only has evidence on her side but is deeply concerned that we take some time to think about how people are motivated by more than self interest. When we do, we recognize the obvious. We all are human, we all have feelings, we all are basically afflicted by pain and cruelty, whether it is inflicted on ourselves or others. People are basically good and government is a manifestation of that. Sure government also reflects our ability to be cruel and to dominate, but it also reflects the better angels of our nature. Now, more than any time in the last 50 years, is the time for us to see this and to act accordingly. We can begin by reading this eloquent and very insightful book.

Gordon Gekko was wrong. Greed is NOT good.

The code of the Good Samaritan was simple: "Help when help is needed."

In The Samaritan's Dilemma, Should Government Help Your Neighbor, Deborah Stone shows that Gordon Gekko's ethos, and that of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan, stems from Malthus and Emerson at their worst. While Friedman and Reagan ushered us into the contemporary world; Malthus, Emerson, and a fear of communism led Herbert Hoover to believe that market forces would end the Great Depression and private charity would alleviate suffering. He was wrong.

However, Malthus' real argument, according to Stone, is less a scientific treatise on population and hunger and more a political tract that suggests that helping the poor brings on more poverty. Emerson confuses bonds of community with bondage. It's as if they read Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal", and thought he was serious.

Stone looks at where we are, how we got here, and where we need to go next. She outlines, and rebuts, "Seven Bad Arguments Against Help." She discusses what she calls "everyday altruism" and "The Samaritan Rebellion." The stories she relates can - and should - bring a tear to your eye - especially the accounts of the lives of people killed on September 11.

She shows that democracy is built on cooperation, and describes what might be called Hoover's Fear, and America's Folly, which is the path on which our government treads. "Unlike dictatorships and totalitarian forms of government, democracy requires citizens to participate in making laws and policies - to govern themselves."

Stone concludes that while most people believe that everyday altruism, volunteerism, and community service are outside the sphere of politics, this faith that people have the capacity to make a difference is integral to democracy and personal fulfillment. "Done right," she says, "government help strengthens democracy." The New Deal and the Great Society grew out of a sense of justice and fairness to correct visible inequalities of wealth and power. Ronald Reagan's Presidency and culture however, which has defined America since 1980 to the present, reverses the liberal, and liberating prescription. Rather than power, and assertiveness, the poor need tough discipline, to listen to authority, and to be submissive. After 30 years, it can be fairly established that Freidman's neoMalthusian principles, Reagan's beliefs, Hoover's fears have been America's folly.

Stone is really asking is what is the purpose of government and an economy? She answers:

* Jobs should pay a living wage,
* Jobs should allow workers to do their jobs and take care of their families,
* Government should supplement family care with publicly supported care.

This is like John Ehrenfeld, in "Sustainability by Design" defining "Sustainability" as "Flourishing ... Forever."

We need to take responsibility for our selves and our communities.

Politics has become synonymous with corruption, and many are alienated from the political system, yet it wasn't always this way. It used to hold the promise of cure and public policy improvement. THE SAMARITAN'S DILEMMA charts the downward course of the political structure and special interests, offering a blend of political essay and reporting on the changing public and political arena. Stories focus on how people practice concern and kindness both within and outside of the political structure and make for an outstanding presentation.

The title of this book is based on a story told by Jesus according to the book of Luke. A man was attacked by robbers who stripped him, beat him up and left him half dead. Two passers-by saw the man and chose to do nothing. Then a Samaritan came upon the man and his heart was filled with pity. He cleaned and bandaged the wounds, took the man to an inn and paid the innkeeper to care for him. Jesus said, "You go, then, and do the same."

Deborah Stone's premise is that government should act like the Samaritan toward its citizens. I agree with her. This has been the Democratic Party's calling since Roosevelt's New Deal. Stone contrasts the Samaritan's actions with the Republican position of laissez faire economics. Unfortunately Stone does a poor job of explaining why it benefits everyone for government to help those in need, other than saying that it helps the needy be better citizens.

Much of the book is anecdotal evidence that helping others also benefits the helper. Stone focuses on individuals who do the right thing and feel good about themselves as a result. In one offensive section she glorifies people who committ welfare fraud as doing what is best for their families. She also makes heros of people who committ Medicare fraud as caregivers who do what is best for their patients. Stone paints these types of civil disobedience as altruistic.

Stone's cure for our currently inadequate system is government insurance for all life events that leave people unable to provide for themselves. Stone also talks about empowering citizens with programs such as affirmative action and Head Start.

I wish Stone's book had spent less time describing individual acts of altruism and more time delving into exactly how the government insurance would work. How will it be paid for? How can services be streamlined so that the use of each dollar is maximized? How can abuse of these programs be prevented? And how do we service the immense number of people who fall through the cracks of current government programs? The details on how to fix "The Samaritan's Dilemma" are too sketchy to make this book worthwhile.

Yes, we understand altruism is better than selfishness (if we're not complete idiots). This book is just so boring that I couldn't even finish it. It's just anecdote after anecdote of altruism. It could and should have been half as long.