The Character That Stays Out Of Poverty

In “The Global Recession of Classical Liberalism” at Law & Liberty, John O. McGinnes recalls that classical liberalism’s successes can erode, and have eroded, the virtues that successfully powered classical liberalism’s best ideas.

Third, and relatedly, at least in the West, there may be diminishing returns on the economic growth that classical liberalism has promoted. It is this relative comfort that allows citizens to focus on prioritizing collective projects or wallowing in their identity even if these tendencies become antithetical to economic growth. That is the reason we now see on the right the claim that liberalism, including classical liberalism, has failed. That contention can become politically resonant in the West only after the memory of the miseries of the pre-liberal world have faded.

McGinnis rightly points out that taking liberalism’s successes for granted makes it easy to cast blame for its failures. The miseries of the pre-liberal world would certainly bring us back to appreciation, but we can still hope that classical liberalism’s best minds will continue to grapple with the vulnerabilities of its best ideas.

A wealthy society such as that of the United States enables us to see a perennial human dynamic in a distinctly modern way. The character that gets out of poverty is not the same character that stays out of poverty.

The character that gets out of poverty accepts limited opportunity, chooses the best (often the least worst) opportunity, works hard often compromising other fundamental goods of health and of marital and family relationships, lives on the minimum, saves the maximum, and spends time and money almost exclusively on activities that generate wealth.

The character that stays out of poverty possesses wealth, enjoys greater opportunity, and must learn to choose wisely under less pressure from want. This character continues to invest time and money in what generates wealth, but the investments have changed. Work for wages becomes work for higher wages, volunteer work, and expanded opportunities for leisure. This character must learn to choose only the best among a surplus of good opportunities.

At bottom, spiritual growth cultivates the character that stays out of poverty. It is difficult work, just as difficult as, but different than the work of the character that gets out of poverty. This character works hard not only at their chosen work but also at identifying and championing the greatest goods of their society. Wealth is a reward but even more is a gift that requires more of the receiver than before the gift was received.

Discerning and cultivating the character that stays out of poverty is, to borrow McGinnis’s language, a proper collective project and question of identity that reaches back to the biblical experience of the Hebrews. Classical liberalism showed a modern way out of the miseries of the pre-liberal world and needs a way of preserving the virtues of its successes that does not rely exclusively on the ever-present threat of poverty.