Clashing Views on Social Issues - Essay Example

Do Social and Mental Pathologies Largely Account for Homelessness? Myron Magnet says that yes, social and mental pathologies largely account for homelessness. This argument is based on the statistics gathered in several major cities. The statistics show that 89% of homeless people arrested tested positive for drug and alcohol use. A sweep of Pennsylvania Station in New York City shoed half of the homeless had serious criminal records for crimes such as murder and rape. The author states that these addictions to drugs, as well as the presence of criminality and mental illness are what drive homelessness, not economic policy. A telling anecdote comes from the leader of a congressional committee that wanted a “poster family” for homelessness. The family needed to meet the following criteria; the mother and father should still be married, they should be clean living, unemployed for more than four months from a manufacturing job and white. No one on the committee could find such a homeless family to use. Surely there are homeless families that fit these criteria, but they are not representative of the general homeless population. Jonathan Kozo argues that only the most superficial causes of homelessness are drugs, mental illness and the breakdown of the family. He expresses the opinion that the real cause of homelessness is the lack of housing. The author states that hundreds of thousands of low income housing units are lost every year to demolition or conversion into condominiums. Gentrification of low income neighborhoods is also displacing poor families. All of this is happening at a time of great economic change. Many manufacturing jobs are disappearing and fewer families are able to meet the rising costs of housing. These economic realities are the base cause of homelessness, not specific social or mental pathologies. I agree with Myron Magnet in this instance. I have read of studies in numerous urban centers where free or exceptionally low rent housing was established to help the homeless have a safe permanent home. Few of these programs were successful because the vast majority of homeless individuals were too addicted or lacked the life skills to properly take care of themselves and a home. The real root of the problem partly poor individual choices and partly health related, but not caused by economic policy. Is Economic Inequality Beneficial for Society? Author George Gilder argues that economic inequality is a great benefit to our society. He says that in a free market like America enjoys, economic is a motivator to better one’s station in life. He notes that in the late 19th century, a million Jews arrived as immigrants in America with an average of $9.00 each. Thirty years later, Jewish household income was double the national average. Similar gains are true for Poles, Italians, Japanese and Germans. All of these groups arrived impoverished and were able to exceed averaged earnings enjoyed by WASP families within a generation. Gilder also points out how statistics do not really indicate actual poverty. Millions of households show up on statistics as having zero net wealth. That’s because the carry more debt than income. If the assets of these families were totaled, they would be worth billions of dollars, so in essence, poverty statistics are skewed. William Ryan argues that the premises of innovation, hard work and merit lifting one out of poverty are seriously flawed. He focuses his argument on the distribution of wealth in the United States. He says that if we were truly a society built on merit, then there would be an exemplary few with great wealth at the top, and a few miscreants with almost no wealth at the bottom. Most everyone, and most of the wealth would be somewhere in the middle. This is not the case. The diagram showing wealth distribution in America is shaped like the Eifel Tower. A few ultra-wealthy individuals at the top have nearly 20% of the wealth at their disposal while nearly everyone else makes up the base of the tower. He suggests a greater sharing of resources is necessary to counteract this misaligned distribution of wealth. In this instance, I agree with William Ryan. While the fundamentals of free markets sound very appealing, the reality is all barriers to services such a education and public service must be removed to level the playing field. As long as our country has a political system where taxation favors the rich, where racism and sexism exist and the cost of higher education makes it the sole domain of the elite, we will have an income distribution that does not recognize true merit or allow for true upward mobility. Should Traditional Families be preserved? David Popenoe argues in this essay that the traditional nuclear family should be preserved and strengthened. The author specifies four trends that indicate the decreasing strength of the traditional family unit. He states that over the past twenty years, there has been a 50% decline in fertility among married couples, a sharp increase in sexual activity outside marriage, an increase in the number of married women with children working outside the home and a sharp rise in the rate of divorce. The social consequences of this weakening are extreme and are most profoundly felt by children. Most of these effects on children are psychological. The author speaks of the ecology of childhood, or the environment in which children are raised in traditional and non-traditional families. Many studies support the traditional nuclear and extended family model and the best way for a child to be raised, so ling as the family is nurturing and supportive. As this ecology changes, children have been shown to be less resilient and less likely to be emotionally stable. Judith Stacey argues that the traditional is at its heart an undemocratic, oppressive institution. She does not advocate for or feel that forming nuclear families should be discouraged. But she does feel that non-traditional families should be supported so that they can function equally in society. She advocates for governmental support of single-parent families to offset some for the seeming disadvantages of this type of family arrangement. Free child care and supplemental education or work skills training from the government are possible ways to accomplish this goal. Homosexual couples should be allowed to form family units, as well. Finally, the author points out that the traditional family was never a guarantee of happiness, support or stability. A democratization of the traditional with supports from the government for non-traditional families is what our society needs. For this essay, I am firmly on the side of David Popenoe. I can not imagine a better institution for raising and training children than the traditional nuclear family. I do not feel the government should meddle in these affairs. Individuals choosing to form non-traditional family arrangements may do so, but need to understand that their choice to do this will have consequences for themselves and their children. I don’t think it is the job of government to relieve individuals from the consequences of their choices. Does Third World Immigration Threaten America’s Cultural Unity? Essayist Lawrence Auster argues that yes, immigration from third world countries does threaten American cultural unity. He takes great care to point out that he is in no way racist by taking this stance. He feels that calling anyone racist that doesn’t stand for unlimited, open immigration is unfair. His argument is based on a historical view of immigration. He shows how America has never welcomed “new” immigrants with open arms. There were concerns about the Irish, Slavs and Southern Europeans. Anti-immigration feeling subsided as the citizens in America saw the new immigrants assimilate into the existing culture. This culture included the adoption of prevailing social values and language. The Arthur argues that the current wave of immigrants do not come with the same values as their European predecessors and show little interest in assimilating to cultural norms. This he says, not racism, is the real threat immigrants from third world countries pose for American cultural unity. Francis Fukuyama takes a different view of immigration to the United States. The author argues that the underpinning of our society is the nuclear family in the traditional sense. Historical views of America are of a melting pot of nations, where people from all over the world lived and worked together. This view was expressed in Tocqueville in 1830. This view was largely facilitated by a shared belief in the same religion (Christianity) and family structure. Fukuyama shows that many groups of Latinos and Asian that are immigrating to the United States in large numbers actually have stronger ties to family and religion (Catholicism) than people already in America. In this way, immigration can only serve to help make America a stronger, yet more diverse place. I feel that Fukuyama has the right idea in this debate. I believe that at the end of the day, modern Americans are suspicious of Latino immigration simply because Latino’s aren’t white. The social structure many immigrants are bringing to America is actually a throwback to the 1950’s in America. At least they would be if entire families were allowed to legally immigrate instead of sneaking into the country one at a time. While there is no doubt that the face of America will change, I agree that ultimately, this latest round of immigrants will make America a stronger place. Is Government Dominated by Big Business? Thomas Byrne Edsall feels that government is dominated by big business. The author notes that a fundamental change in the economics of our nation has undermined the democratic process. This change has affected both major political parties, the Republicans and Democrats, though the changes have happened for different reasons. In the late 1970’s, the Republican party, running on a platform of pro-business and small government started to forge alliances with large companies as they contributed to newly formed Political Action Committees (PACs). These PACs, by contributing to campaigns of business friendly congressmen, have been able to buy influence that has shaped our economic policy for the past 30 years. Flush with money, the Republican Party was able to gain control of congress in the 1990’s and continue to work the will of the business community. The Democratic Party needed to start looking for large money to fuel campaigns because the economic downturn had robbed them of their traditional share of support from the less fortunate population. The end result of these political and economic changes resulted in big business and big money big money being firmly in control of both political parties. Jeffrey M. Berry disagrees. He states that the rise of grassroots citizen groups is where the real political power lies these days. The protest movement of the 1960’s has given rise to an increasingly involved adult citizenry that is willing to engage the political process on their own terms. This is true for groups within both major political parties. The left is represented by environmental and consumer advocacy groups. The right is fueled by pro-life and family values advocates. This rise, while healthy for democracy, has made the policymaking process more difficult. As individual groups morph into networks, more people and political power is melded together among people often with disparate political ideologies. Gone are the days of party line partisanship. The author feels that the new era is an area of grassroots, community involvement; not government dominated by big business. My feeling is that Mr. Edsall is correct. Big business has an undue influence on government because they have the money to buy influence through constant lobbying and campaign support checks. The common citizen that is part of a grassroots community organization does not have the king of access the CEO of a major corporation has to congressional staff and members. The corrupting influence of business can be seen in both parties as campaigns become more expensive and the financial rewards for being elected are higher than ever. If a congressman isn’t a millionaire when he is elected, then he will surely be a millionaire soon after! Does Population Growth Threaten Humanity? Lester R. Brown, author of “The New World Order,” featured in State of the World argues that population growth does threaten humanity. He bases his argument on several ecological and economic realities. The author describes the way an economist views the world in comparison to the way an ecologist views the world. An economist sees the possibility for ever increasing profit and increases to the standard of living as having little or nothing to do with ecological barriers. The economist believes that any natural confines implemented on the economic system by ecology will eventually be overcome by technological advances. The ecologist, on the other hand, sees the world as an elaborately linked series of closed cycles and systems, such as the hydrological cycle or the carbon cycle, for example. Brown argues that by allowing economics to dictate how we use our natural resources, including the power of procreation, we are destroying the very systems that sustain life on earth. He advocates the establishment of a new world order when he says, “…there is an obvious need for initiatives that will quickly convert our environmentally unsustainable global economy into one that is sustainable (Finsterbusch, 1994). Julian L. Simon argues that population growth does not threaten humanity. He points out the technological improvements that continue to outpace the growing population are actually making natural resources less scarce as the population grows. He points to the increase in average lifespan as the real reason for our growing population. He feels that we need to stop looking at resources such as land and water as fixed entities because technology will always increase our ability to obtain these items. Finally, he argues that governmental control of decisions concerning conception and procreation would be a jolt to the sensibilities of anyone living in a free society. Simon’s final argument is the one that swung me to the “no” side of this debate. I do see the unwise use of natural resources as a major issue in our society. There is not doubt that population pressures cause us to manage our economies in unsustainable ways. But governmental control of such an intimate decision as procreation sounds like a horrible idea to me. I believe the real solution to most environmental concerns lies not in limiting population, but changing our perceptions about what constitutes a successful lifestyle. As our desires become less materialistic, then our stresses places on the environment will become fewer. Should Drugs Be Legalized? Ethan A. Nadelman argues that there is much historical evidence to support the legalization of drugs in America. He notes that many controlled substances today were once readily available over the counter. These included morphine, heroine and a little bit of cocaine in Coca-Cola. Levels of addiction were only slightly higher then than they are now for these substances, even though they were obtained easily and legally. What was greatly different was the crime and poverty associated with drug addiction today. The author argues that drug prohibition continues today only because the users of illegal drugs are the least powerful members of society, namely racial minorities and young people. Alcohol prohibition ended long ago because it was more of an inconvenience for those in power in our society. Making drugs legal and benefitting from the attendant governmental revenues from taxes would benefit all sectors of our society. A dissenting opinion was offered by David T. Courtwright. The damage to society through impairment, addiction and dependence on tax revenue would be massive if drugs were legalized. The author argues that controlled use of drugs would create legal conundrums. Most proponents say that pregnant women should be denied the use of drugs if they are legalized to protect the fetus. But that could also require pregnant women from being allowed legal access to tobacco and alcohol. Impairment by public safety officers would also become a concern. Finally, the author theorizes that the real addict might become the state, as a steady stream of revenue begins to roll in due to taxes on the drugs. The state would have little incentive to dissuade people from using drugs due to the revenue stream. I agree with the argument offered by Courtwright. Legally introducing more addictive substances into our society is a bad idea. The health costs associated with tobacco and alcohol is staggering. Adding to that tally with an increase in drug addiction sounds like a horrible idea. The human cost of such a law would greatly outweigh the increased tax revenue. Is Sexual Harassment a Pervasive Problem in America? Ellen Bravo and Ellen Cassedy argue that yes, sexual harassment is a pervasive problem in America. They express the understanding that in many fields, women are relatively new to the workforce and therefore are entering realms once entirely dominated by men. The men in these industries may not realize that behaviors that were once acceptable in all male company, such as the telling of off-color jokes or explicit sexual language, are actually a form of sexual harassment when used in mixed company. The authors acknowledge that is the cause of some sexual harassment, but make it clear that they feel most sexual harassment is calculated and intentional. They cite many studies that 20% of all female graduate students report being sexually harassed by those in positions of authority and a majority (53%) of women in the workplace have personally experienced or know someone who has been the target of sexual harassment (Finsterbusch, 1994). Gretchen Morgensen takes an opposing view to Bravo and Cassedy. She states that sexual harassment has actually spawned a "harassment industry" that is self perpetuating. Companies seeking to protect themselves from lawsuits hire special firms to do harassment awareness training. This way they can limit their liability. She feels that harassment is talked about constantly but rarely actually occurs. She points to the fact that many women claim to have been harassed, but as few a 4% actually ever report the harassment. The author attributes this to the vague nature of harassment. What is perceived as harassment by one person may be deemed appropriate by another.¬† Individual’s perceptions vary from day to day as well. This leads to situations where the joke told on Friday is laughed at by a co-worker, but a similar one told on Monday is perceived as harassment. She also sees the demise of the harassment industry as more women enter the workforce and become leaders in their industries. I personally feel that sexual harassment is a pervasive problem in America, but I do not feel that the intention is as sinister as Bravo and Cassedy present. I do not feel there is some plot by men in positions of power to harass women out of the workforce. I simply feel that there are, unfortunately, plenty of men with low moral character in or society that could intentionally make a woman feel uncomfortable just so he can feel in control or superior. Some of the harassment is surely perpetuated by men in the hopes that their juvenile sexual advances will somehow be returned by the woman. Whatever the case, sexual harassment is a real pervasive problem in America. Should Government Intervene in a Capitalist Economy? Ersnest Erber argues in this essay that the government should intervene in a capitalist market place. Erber gives several reasons intervention is necessary. First, he states that government is needed to intervene in the marketplace to provide goods and services there are no economic incentive to develop or provide. These include education, social welfare or low cost housing. Other reasons for intervention are necessary due to the natural self-destructive tendencies of the market place. The market operates without conscience in it purest form. It seeks to maximize profit at all costs. Occasionally the costs are detrimental to the market itself in the long run. This has lead to the model of Keynesian economics, where the hand of government, far from being “unseen” as Adam Smith envisioned, takes an active role in tempering the heat or stoking fire under a cooling market place. This is done directly or indirectly. But either way, it is government intervention that provides the parameters within which the market is allowed to operate. For this reason, government must take an active role in guiding the direction of the market. Milton and Rose Friedman argue that the government should not interfere in a capitalistic economy. The authors argue that in a truly “hands off” economy there is no need of government intervention because in the end, as everyone is allowed to operate in their own self interest, everyone’s needs can and will be met to varying degrees. The only real danger to the consumer in a capitalistic economy is that of the monopoly, because then prices do not reach equilibrium. They are kept artificially high, thus hurting all of the consumers in the society. The Friedmans suggest governments only intervention be the supplying of information necessary to make informed decisions, and then let the consumers act and decide their course of investment. I find it hard to believe for a minute in these days that anyone would take the Friedman’s seriously. I am of the opinion that the marketplace has become a predatory place and that an active role of government is necessary to shield citizens from the negative impacts. Regulations, when relaxed, have resulted in some of the worst financial debacles in recent memory such as the Savings and Loan Scandal in the early 1980’s and the current investment banking catastrophe that the government must spend 700 billion dollars to clean up because of their own wanton deregulation. Government must keep a steady hand on the keel of the market if we are all to escape the markets unquenchable thirst for resources and power. Is Incapacitation the Answer to the Crime Problem? Morgan O. Reynolds argues in his essay that incarceration does deter crime. Statistically, he shows that the perception of time served for an individual crime is a strong deterrent to criminals that would want to commit the crime. For example, in 1950 a person could expect to spend on average 24 days in prison for a misdemeanor offense. The incidence on these occurrences was 1.8 per 1000 citizens. By the 1990’s, the expected amount of prison time had dropped to just 8 days for a misdemeanor offense. The incidence rate by this time was almost 4 per 1000 citizens. The argument is also made that, while prisons are costly to construct, their importance in deterring possible crime actually pays for itself over the course of their lifetime in lost property, court fees and crime prevention patrols. David L. Bazzelon argues that incapacitation is not a meaningful deterrent to crime because it does not address the root causes of crime. He states that rehabilitation through job training and education would be more fruitful in the long run. Equipping ex-convicts with skills that will allow them to lead productive lives on the outside will lessen their chances to returning to prison. But he states that anyone that has visited an American prison can see that they are not constructed to by places of rehabilitation, but are in fact places of incapacitation. By failing to get to the complex but identifiable root causes of crime, Bazzelon argues that money spent on prisons and other forms of incarceration and monitoring are fruitless. In this instance, I agree with Mr. Reynolds. While I am aware of the difficult circumstances many involved in street crime have been exposed to as children and youths, I do feel that criminals need to be taken out of society for the safety of all. Every day a criminal spends behind bars is a day that he or she can not harm my family. I agree that we must root out the causes that can propel individuals into lives of crime, but for those that are already criminals, the solution in incapacitation. Work Cited Finsterbusch, K. (1994). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Social Issues. Guilford, Connecticut: Dushkin Publishing Group. Read More