There is something fascinating about the way many American conservatives think. On the topic of humanitarianism, the right tends to be more isolationist and not feel the need to use our power and resources to benefit those abroad. Though the motivations for thinking this way do not spring from an innate sense of malevolence, they are still baffling.
Why should we help the rest of the world? What is in it for us? If we give \them"" food and water, won't they just use it to make missiles to attack us or something? It may be surprising for some right-wingers out there to learn that no, the destruction of New York is not the immediate concern of a mother of three in Liberia.
The more ignorant people in the United States have let terrorism into their thoughts at a level that can only be deemed excessive and unhealthy. The most damaging thing al Qaeda did was ensure that the average citizen thought more about homeland security than about securing supplies for those in need. To condemn an entire region of people, in this case the Middle East and other Muslim nations in Asia and Africa, for the actions of a few is despicable and hypocritical. One could, in the same spirit, look down on and be suspicious of Irish Catholics because of the bombings in London. Because we understand the Irish culture and can relate to the Irish, this will not happen.
Now come the naysayers who bring up our aid to Afghanistan and Iraq in the 1980s. That backfired on us in the form of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, respectively. Here's a novel idea: do not foment war, do not supply forces in war and be very careful about regime changes unless the cause is undeniably just. When we decide we want to preserve life, let's try medical services instead of Stinger missiles.
Let's return to the issue of actually helping people. Many leftists have the wrong idea in wanting to jump into every hot spot, feed every child and lift the world back up ourselves. This is idealistic and na??ve. The United States can't help everyone, its forces cannot be everywhere and some countries are currently too dangerous for humanitarian agencies to just walk into. This still does not mean we, as Americans, cannot do some serious good.
But wait, now comes the argument from the right again. We have our own problems in this country and our own poor deserve to be helped first. This sounds noble except for the fact that those who say it haven't the least interest in building up their fellow citizens. The money that could go toward a family in south Chicago which is struggling to get by, instead goes toward a BMW for a son or daughter who hasn't done a thing in their life to deserve it. Thanks to recent tax cuts, the rich will have even more money to spend on their materialistic desires. But who cares about the good feeling that comes from helping others when you can make sure your child doesn't have to get a job and ever show a sense of responsibility until they're well out of college.
The people who say that we must look after Americans first are more often than not self-centered and looking for an excuse as to why they can go on in comfort ignoring the rest of the world. There is more than enough money in the United States to make a difference, but instead a small percentage of wealthy people opt to use it on whatever strikes their fancy that week. The expensive clothes, gold watch and big house are where the money goes instead of toward a malnourished child in Detroit or Mogadishu. Next time someone neglects the problems abroad for the problems at home, see if they even have a vague understanding of the issues outside their sheltered, upper-class suburb.
Realistically, it would benefit all of us to build up and help the rest of the world, as the effects will eventually lead back to us. The person with the ability to cure AIDS could very well be lying on a street in Monrovia, for example. By helping the underdeveloped world we are expanding the pool of candidates who can aid humanity as a whole. We students at the University of Wisconsin were just lucky enough to have the training to get here and the fiscal resources to stay, so do not think everyone deserving is here already.
Humanitarianism is still vital and apathy is its greatest opponent. Naturally no one should be expected to spend all their money on helping others, but a little bit goes a long way, and there is plenty we do not need. Just remember, what goes around comes around.
