A Summary for How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience

John Kenneth Galbraith, the writer of this essay, is a famous Keynesian. In the essay, Galbraith introduces five historical solutions and five current designs with a tone of irony. The answer to this question, by Galbraith, is that we should give up ignoring the existence of the impoverished.

As for how to get the poor off our conscience, the author, in the second part, brings us five historical solutions: according to the bible, the poor should be patient enough to their poverty of the current life so as to enjoy their future fortune in the next life; according to the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentharn, the greatest good for the greatest number, society does its best for the largest possible number of people, by which people can get the poor off their conscience; based on Malthusianism, poverty is caused by the way too much birth given by the poor, so the poverty is the fault of the poor and nothing related with the rich; the theory of “survival of the fittest” of Social Darwinism provides the rich an excuse that the poor and the affluence are the results of the operation of the law of nature and God; Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover believe that assistance to the poor is inconsistent with the economic design and also damages the economy, by which the rich can also get the poor out of their conscience.

However, the Roosevelt revolution, which is favored by the author, is not the end of the question of thinking about the poor. The recent years have witnessed at least five designs for avoiding considering the poor: the government’s incompetence should be the reason for the poor; helping the poor only hurts the poor; public-assistance measures have an adverse effect on the motivation of the rich and the diligent; the freedom of the affluence is reduced while that of the impoverished is not extraordinarily enhanced by taking money to help the poor from the taxes of the rich; psychological denial to the poor can also be a method to get out of the poor from the rich’s conscience. Galbraith points out that all the designs, save the last, are great inventive descent from Bentham, Malthus and Spencer. Alas, some of the designs are welcomed in the high Washington circles.

Galbraith says civil discontent and its consequences do not come from contented people. As a result, social and political tranquility should be preserved and enlarged. There may be another question here: how can we make sure the people, who we thought and considered were happy, are really content?