The charge that conservatives are indifferent to the poor is simply bogus.
There are fundamentally only 2 ways to help the poor:
1) direct financial support, either from government or private sources.
2) indirect support, also either from government or private sources.
Conservatives believe that a combination of tax incentives which create an environment conducive to the poor helping themselves, along with private humanitarian & charitable activity, is the more enobling strategy, honoring the individual and rewarding work. Those truly unable to help themselves deserve the support of both government, in the broadest sense, and private humanitarian activity.
Liberals (you'll have to bear with me here since my brain has a very hard time thinking like one) favor direct subsidies to the poor, primarily through governmental redistribution of wealth.
So in general, liberals prefer the direct approach where conservatives prefer the indirect approach. Calling the indirect approach "indifferent" is not only incorrect, it is demagoguery. Most of us conservatives prefer the latter approach, not because it helps the poor less, but because it has the side effect of promoting personal achievement, self-worth and dignity
I'll offer an opinion here - many liberals, especially rich liberals, especially rich liberals with inherited wealth, whether consciously or not, prefer that the government take care of the poor so that nothing is expected or required of themselves. It takes the heat off. I'd have greater respect for them if more of their own money voluntarily followed their rhetoric into the hands of the poor. I am unaware of any law or policy that prevents the rich from giving money to or otherwise supporting the poor. And before I get flamed, I know many rich liberals support charitable causes (after all, our tax laws encourage that, right?... lowering the effective tax rate for the rich, right?) and they are to be commended for that support whatever its motivation. But, it is one thing to set an example to be followed, it is another to demand others do the work for,or even with, you.
I'll also beg to differ with this notion that the wealthy benefit the most from civil society. What is that but an empty phrase? This idea harbors unspoken envy, along with the implication that wealth is either ill-gotten or in & of itself somehow an unearned or undeserved "perk" of civil society. I don't buy that.
Cheers,
Daiwa
