For many of the major issues facing Americans, whether it be criminality, drug addiction, or illegal immigration, the leftist "solution" is to enable bad behavior with vanity measures that only further human misery instead of interrupting it.
Amazing! You’ve said so much in such a short post.
I’ve been looking at it as a problem of people imposing simple solutions on complex problems (which is an approach doomed to failure), but, like you, I’ve been struck by the so-called problem solvers are, at the end of the day, pursuing their own agenda.
In homelessness, for example, where many of the homeless have untreated addiction and/or mental health issues, there’s a population of advocates and/or activists who frame the whole thing up as a housing crisis (or the lack of affordable housing), and then they set up the homeless in tent encampments (to get the problem in everyone’s face) or they go with “housing first” approaches. Either way, they are enabling the mental health or addiction issue to remain untreated, while appearing to care deeply and appearing to be taking action.
When asked, a lot of addicts would say that their primary goal is to be drug free so they can live a more stable life, whereas for the advocacy groups the main goal is to have a roof over everyone’s head (even if they then continue to be an addict).
Exactly! They don't get the root of the issue. Them being homeless is the end result of those root issues. There are some people who are homeless for economic reasons but they require different solutions.
In Sudbury, one of the outreach NGOs post on their website that in November and December 2023, they had over 4,000 contacts with the local drug addicts. In each month they handed out hundreds of meals, drug enabling kits, Narcon kits and snacks. They also referred one addict in Novermber and two in December for detox treatment.
Are they making it easier to remain addicted or are they trying to get them off the streets? They say we have to meet them where they are at and over time, we will win their trust.
They also say that we must wait for the addicts to hit rock bottom and want out of the lifestyle. Perhaps that is true. But, what they are doing is lengthening the time to reach that point.
In 2023, Sudbury had 32 unclaimed dead that will be buried by the city. That is one death for every three that were housed in either social housing or in flop houses.
If that is indeed the case, then the options are stark. Endless enablements which await their likely demise or forced treatment which may or may not lead to anything but a repeat performance.
Your opening statement reminds me of something sci fi/fantasy author Ursula Le Guin said in a book: "The problem in trying to do good is that the mind comes to confuse the intent of goodness with the act of doing things well." This is so true of the problems you highlight. And we see too often added to that sin is the problem of an inability to admit failure and subsequent doubling down on the harmful action.
Thank you for this column! People I know are making the same decisions as you mention occurs on Dr. Phil. Then they decry 'enablers.' I guess they just cannot bring it into their hearts to be 'mean.' They are well meaning but ineffective.
I am old enough (70's) to remember the general purpose use of the drunk tank to sweep up everybody who was under the influence in public, typically late at night. I don't think that the police even charged anyone much of the time, they let them out the next day once they were no longer under the influence - and no, you would not enjoy the stay. I even remember my father's story of spending a night in jail in North Dakota - he and his friend were going back to camp and were waiting at the station for the morning train, but they weren't allowed to be idle over the nightime hours, so the sheriff had them sleep in a cell until it was time to catch the train back to camp.
Yes, we need more low cost housing, lots and lots of it, - but there is less than no point building low cost housing to have it destroyed by incompetent / irresponsible / criminal tenants. And I do not care if the irresponsibility / incompetence is the result of mental disease or substance use disorders. Only if the tenants are just poor does low cost housing alone work. If they are unfit due to actively abusing substances or their unwillingness to maintain their treatment for their mental issues, there is no reason to have them destroying cities and neighborhoods. Move them out.
Set up camps for them in old heavy industrial sites, abandoned farms / ranches, etc, where they don't have much opportunity to destroy stuff. I grew up doing a lot of camping and spent one summer officially homeless - I lived in an out of the way storage structure / lab near where I worked when I was a student. You actually don't need much space to survive.
Good idea, and worth a try. There must be many sensible, effective solutions to the societal problems we face, but politicians don't seem interested in really solving the problems. I wonder why.
Or perhaps they are not so unintended? Many think that the real hidden agenda of leftism/liberalism is to burn down our entire society and culture and rebuild it into something else. If correct then the truth about liberalism is that they really done care whether their ideas work or not because successfully solving problems is not their real goal. History is replete with so many examples of failed leftist ideas. Perhaps there is merit to this argument and leftist goals have nothing to do with actually solving problems.
Caring means tough love, while living a civilized life means not walking down the street through excrement and needles. I see a likely return to involuntary institutionalization for those unable to care for themselves, but with many checks and balances to prevent abuse.
How are “criminality, drug addiction, or illegal immigration” the big problems we face. Crime levels are low relative to where they have been during my adult lifetime (born 1959). Drug addiction is like gun violence, a perennial issue and I suspect immigration is more political than anything else.
You implicitly made a reference to history by using the modifier "big." Big compared to what? There is always crime and drug use. For these to be big problems they would have to be large compared to what we have seen in the past
Big compared to other problems. Big compared to needing a stop light on a busy intersection.
That's how you interpreted it but I already stated that it's not in reference to time.
I'm not sure if you're just looking for an argument or not especially when you're hyper analyzing one word and I already politely corrected the misunderstanding. I have no interest in arguing if that's your intention.
I agree with everything except with the concept that enabling bad behavior begins from a place of genuine concern. I think it’s 100% self-serving and/or cowardly and shows *no* concern for the enabled whom they are slowly hobbling.
I'm saying prior to enabling, it often starts because there is a legit problem and the person is concerned. It starts as concern but eventually turns into enabling the problem.
Not every time or every situation but in many circumstances that's the case.
This is a profoundly well articulated piece. It is, I believe, one of the core problems in our world today. Parents enabling destructive behavior, communities and governments enabling destructive behavior, etc, etc., etc. All in the name of "compassion."
In the end, enabling--especially in the way you highlight with the "dirty needles" nonsense -- only makes it worse. If you really care about someone, you will do what you can to help them STOP destructive behavior--not engage in destructive behavior more "safely." Destructive behavior is destructive behavior--and if we care about people, we would want to help them get off self-destructive paths and back onto successful, meaningful, happy paths.
Excellent column Adam. The problem with libs/lefties was described by one of the other commenters correctly as “boutique altruism.” This is absolutely correct. Liberal altruism and their failed “solutions” is about them, not the problem or the people with the problem. They’re like that annoying person at work who is always preening in front of the boss, “look at me, look at me,” but who never really gets anything done. This same liberal psychosis is what causes them to blame the gun for crime rather than the person wielding it. As one other commentator described it, a simple solution for a complex problem. At its root liberalism/leftism is a philosophy with ideas that simply do not work.
Amazing! You’ve said so much in such a short post.
I’ve been looking at it as a problem of people imposing simple solutions on complex problems (which is an approach doomed to failure), but, like you, I’ve been struck by the so-called problem solvers are, at the end of the day, pursuing their own agenda.
In homelessness, for example, where many of the homeless have untreated addiction and/or mental health issues, there’s a population of advocates and/or activists who frame the whole thing up as a housing crisis (or the lack of affordable housing), and then they set up the homeless in tent encampments (to get the problem in everyone’s face) or they go with “housing first” approaches. Either way, they are enabling the mental health or addiction issue to remain untreated, while appearing to care deeply and appearing to be taking action.
When asked, a lot of addicts would say that their primary goal is to be drug free so they can live a more stable life, whereas for the advocacy groups the main goal is to have a roof over everyone’s head (even if they then continue to be an addict).
Exactly! They don't get the root of the issue. Them being homeless is the end result of those root issues. There are some people who are homeless for economic reasons but they require different solutions.
called boutique altruism
Spot on, Adam. Insightful piece.
Thank you
You bet
In Sudbury, one of the outreach NGOs post on their website that in November and December 2023, they had over 4,000 contacts with the local drug addicts. In each month they handed out hundreds of meals, drug enabling kits, Narcon kits and snacks. They also referred one addict in Novermber and two in December for detox treatment.
Are they making it easier to remain addicted or are they trying to get them off the streets? They say we have to meet them where they are at and over time, we will win their trust.
I am starting to have doubts.
They also say that we must wait for the addicts to hit rock bottom and want out of the lifestyle. Perhaps that is true. But, what they are doing is lengthening the time to reach that point.
Rock bottom is the morgue.
In 2023, Sudbury had 32 unclaimed dead that will be buried by the city. That is one death for every three that were housed in either social housing or in flop houses.
If that is indeed the case, then the options are stark. Endless enablements which await their likely demise or forced treatment which may or may not lead to anything but a repeat performance.
I am as well
Your opening statement reminds me of something sci fi/fantasy author Ursula Le Guin said in a book: "The problem in trying to do good is that the mind comes to confuse the intent of goodness with the act of doing things well." This is so true of the problems you highlight. And we see too often added to that sin is the problem of an inability to admit failure and subsequent doubling down on the harmful action.
The comparison to enabling is perfect. In reality, enabling is just a lack of courage.
Thank you for this column! People I know are making the same decisions as you mention occurs on Dr. Phil. Then they decry 'enablers.' I guess they just cannot bring it into their hearts to be 'mean.' They are well meaning but ineffective.
Thank you for taking the time to read it!
I am old enough (70's) to remember the general purpose use of the drunk tank to sweep up everybody who was under the influence in public, typically late at night. I don't think that the police even charged anyone much of the time, they let them out the next day once they were no longer under the influence - and no, you would not enjoy the stay. I even remember my father's story of spending a night in jail in North Dakota - he and his friend were going back to camp and were waiting at the station for the morning train, but they weren't allowed to be idle over the nightime hours, so the sheriff had them sleep in a cell until it was time to catch the train back to camp.
Yes, we need more low cost housing, lots and lots of it, - but there is less than no point building low cost housing to have it destroyed by incompetent / irresponsible / criminal tenants. And I do not care if the irresponsibility / incompetence is the result of mental disease or substance use disorders. Only if the tenants are just poor does low cost housing alone work. If they are unfit due to actively abusing substances or their unwillingness to maintain their treatment for their mental issues, there is no reason to have them destroying cities and neighborhoods. Move them out.
Set up camps for them in old heavy industrial sites, abandoned farms / ranches, etc, where they don't have much opportunity to destroy stuff. I grew up doing a lot of camping and spent one summer officially homeless - I lived in an out of the way storage structure / lab near where I worked when I was a student. You actually don't need much space to survive.
Good idea, and worth a try. There must be many sensible, effective solutions to the societal problems we face, but politicians don't seem interested in really solving the problems. I wonder why.
The unintended consequences of liberalism.
Or perhaps they are not so unintended? Many think that the real hidden agenda of leftism/liberalism is to burn down our entire society and culture and rebuild it into something else. If correct then the truth about liberalism is that they really done care whether their ideas work or not because successfully solving problems is not their real goal. History is replete with so many examples of failed leftist ideas. Perhaps there is merit to this argument and leftist goals have nothing to do with actually solving problems.
Caring means tough love, while living a civilized life means not walking down the street through excrement and needles. I see a likely return to involuntary institutionalization for those unable to care for themselves, but with many checks and balances to prevent abuse.
How are “criminality, drug addiction, or illegal immigration” the big problems we face. Crime levels are low relative to where they have been during my adult lifetime (born 1959). Drug addiction is like gun violence, a perennial issue and I suspect immigration is more political than anything else.
They are big problems in difficulty to manage or resolve. That's what I'm saying. I also didn't make any reference to historical comparisons.
You implicitly made a reference to history by using the modifier "big." Big compared to what? There is always crime and drug use. For these to be big problems they would have to be large compared to what we have seen in the past
Big compared to other problems. Big compared to needing a stop light on a busy intersection.
That's how you interpreted it but I already stated that it's not in reference to time.
I'm not sure if you're just looking for an argument or not especially when you're hyper analyzing one word and I already politely corrected the misunderstanding. I have no interest in arguing if that's your intention.
I agree with everything except with the concept that enabling bad behavior begins from a place of genuine concern. I think it’s 100% self-serving and/or cowardly and shows *no* concern for the enabled whom they are slowly hobbling.
I think there is a slight misunderstanding...
I'm saying prior to enabling, it often starts because there is a legit problem and the person is concerned. It starts as concern but eventually turns into enabling the problem.
Not every time or every situation but in many circumstances that's the case.
Anyone who uses blanket terms like 'leftists' is not worth reading from my perspective.
Anyone who makes a blanket determination over "worth" of perspective because of a term is not worth reading from my perspective.
This is a profoundly well articulated piece. It is, I believe, one of the core problems in our world today. Parents enabling destructive behavior, communities and governments enabling destructive behavior, etc, etc., etc. All in the name of "compassion."
In the end, enabling--especially in the way you highlight with the "dirty needles" nonsense -- only makes it worse. If you really care about someone, you will do what you can to help them STOP destructive behavior--not engage in destructive behavior more "safely." Destructive behavior is destructive behavior--and if we care about people, we would want to help them get off self-destructive paths and back onto successful, meaningful, happy paths.
Excellent column Adam. The problem with libs/lefties was described by one of the other commenters correctly as “boutique altruism.” This is absolutely correct. Liberal altruism and their failed “solutions” is about them, not the problem or the people with the problem. They’re like that annoying person at work who is always preening in front of the boss, “look at me, look at me,” but who never really gets anything done. This same liberal psychosis is what causes them to blame the gun for crime rather than the person wielding it. As one other commentator described it, a simple solution for a complex problem. At its root liberalism/leftism is a philosophy with ideas that simply do not work.
LA sounds like the place where common sense goes to die lol