U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, recently gave a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. At the conference he criticized both the economic policies of Democratic politicians and the modern welfare state. He even criticized the policy of public schools providing free lunches to those in poverty. Ryan’s speech is just one small part of a larger phenomenon that demonstrates the Republican Party’s ideological retreat to its 1920s self. Regardless, Ryan’s rhetorical crusade against free public school lunches shows a lack of empathy for those who depend on government programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to make ends meet.
Ryan has always been a large proponent of free markets. In fact, he is a big admirer of novelist Ayn Rand. In the past, Ryan has supported transforming Medicare into a voucher scheme, partially privatizing Social Security and has actively opposed increases to the federal minimum wage. Many in the modern Republican Party have also supported Ryan’s efforts and still continue to do so.
At CPAC last week, Ryan once again embraced Randian ideals by expressing his indignation at social welfare programs, including free school lunches. He argued that free school lunches, among other government programs, give people “a full stomach—and an empty soul.” He further stated, “That’s what the Left just doesn’t understand. . . People don’t just want a life of comfort; they want a life of dignity — of self-determination.”
Ryan is correct insofar that people “want a life of dignity,” one that is the result of self-determination. Yet, he is incorrect to say that a person lacks dignity and self-determination by enrolling in government social programs. Unregulated capitalism leads to massive income inequality. In fact, the U.S. is in a new Gilded Age, with income inequality at its worst in nearly 100 years. Since capitalism leads to income inequality, a person does not lose their “dignity” by accepting benefits from a government program. On the contrary, capitalism would not work if government programs did not help alleviate income inequality and the other negative aspects of capitalism from undermining capitalism itself.
Furthermore, implicit in Ryan’s criticism of social programs is the assumption that adults need to take personal responsibility for their lives. Even if this simplistic view of adults and social programs was taken at face value, it misses an important and crucial point: Children are dependent upon parents or legal guardians for their physical and emotional needs. If their parents have limited financial means, they may be at risk for going without the necessities of life such as food and adequate clothing. Children should not be punished for being born into poverty by being denied necessities for life.
Notwithstanding the fact that Ryan’s “paper bag” story was a fabrication, his criticism of free school lunch programs fails to recognize a fundamental reality: Many poverty-stricken children in this country depend on free school lunches so that they and their families have enough to eat. I myself received either free or reduced lunches throughout most of my public schooling, all the way up through high school. I didn’t lose my “dignity” or the right of “self-determination.” My family, as a whole, just didn’t make much. My parents weren’t lazy either; many times they were both working. Even so, we couldn’t escape poverty. Those social programs helped give me a chance to escape poverty and pursue an advanced degree. Free school lunch programs didn’t make me lose my dignity, but instead increased it.
The Republican Party’s current rhetoric echoes its former self in the 1920s. Paul Ryan and much of the rest of the Republican Party have criticized the modern welfare state, while promoting the purported virtues of free markets. Ryan has also criticized free school lunches at public schools. The next time Ryan criticizes free school lunch programs, I suggest he finds some empathy and remember there are real people, specifically children, who may go hungry without these programs. Maybe then he wouldn’t be so quick to ax federal social programs that help millions of Americans.
Aaron Loudenslager ([email protected]) is a second-year law student.
