The
nutritional key to better health doesn't lie in a great meal, but in
a consistently good diet.
Through an abundance of governmental
and non-governmental agencies, our nation extends food, clothing and
shelter to persons in desperation world-wide. As individuals, we
support local causes in relief of the less fortunate. It's never
enough, of course, and these actions seldom, if ever, “cure”
whatever problems have put populations in such need that
dependence on the charity of neighbours is their only hope.
Of course, emergency charitable giving
is essential. Foreign aid, food banks, soup kitchens, Christmas
hampers, emergency shelters are expressions of our compassion and
generosity while bringing at least some comfort to people in dire
straits.
There are, however, bad, indifferent
and better ways to respond to recognized need. As the opening
sentence says, it's “diet” that needs to be secured more than a
dinner provided for, for instance, a struggling family. A useful
analogy might lie in the economic sphere: it's not the cash
you have today that matters; it's cash flow that secures
sufficiency.
All of which has led some charities
to rethink their approaches. The family that frequents a food bank
for whatever reason is not short of food, per se; it's short of the
means to buy food. Our
stores are overflowing with great food. The food bank—if it only
provides groceries in a regulated manner to persons passing
(failing?) a means test—is a good thing as an emergency measure and
as a way of mitigating wastage, but the need on a deeper level is for
a change in food and wealth policies that would render the
need for handouts obsolete.
I won't save the
teeth of a poor family's children by giving them a tube of
toothpaste—unless I'm prepared to provide a new tube every week. A
Christmas Hamper can be a real treat, but if there's not a
week-after-Christmas hamper and a two-weeks-after-Christmas hamper,
what exactly is it we're doing besides stroking our own
generosity-ego and paying for one meal?
I'm perplexed that
in a country where universal health care is equally distributed to
everyone regardless of means, those amenities that equate to healthy
“diet” (solid, comprehensive education; abundant healthy food;
comfortable shelter; community leisure infrastructure; etc.) are not.
Healthcare as we deliver it is remedial; it exists to correct health
breakdown, much of which would be cheaper to prevent than to
remediate.
Yes, I know.
Socialism. That pariah to the part of the population that thinks the
road to happiness relies on its naïve definition of personal
independence and liberty at all costs—and the devil take the
hindmost. But the personal independence impulse is selective: it
rails against perceived infringements on privacy and personal freedom
but assumes entitlement to a whole gamut of things already provided
under the social(ist) contract, like roads, schools, airports, public
transit, child benefits, old age pensions, employment insurance,
water, sewer, parks, swimming pools, etc., etc., etc. Preferably
without paying taxes.
Successful,
sustainable economies are generally mixed economies. They prosper through private and public entrepreneurship and controlled capitalism in partnership with social
democracy. To campaign for either one over the other is a fool's
errand that results in division, wasted potential, and—at
it's worst—an ungovernable state in which a negotiated directions
become practically impossible to achieve.
A culture of winners and
losers. Life as a zero-sum game.
Which brings me
back to the beginning of this diatribe. Generosity, charity,
Christian obligation to “feed the hungry, etc.” absolutely must
get political. To put our efforts into patching up what our failed
politics has torn just won't get us to a better place. Reactionary
political policies must be rooted out of our institutions of power,
we just can't afford to have every social advance torn down by
neoliberalism.
The means to doing that lies in the ballot box and the voice God gave
us to advocate for policies that produce justice for everyone.
Canada has the
resources, the skills and expertise to make of itself a country where
every person lives in a safe, comfortable shelter, eats three
nutritious meals a day, has access to quality liberal education, is
able to enjoy sports, arts, culture and community amenities, and is
near enough to good healthcare when its needed.
If I don't believe
we can ever make that happen, and if that makes me apathetic, I'm
part of the problem.
