The answer to poverty is business development, not charity. Trade, not aid."

MEADOR: Pastor's poverty plan a viable solution

By: Jake Meador

Posted: 9/4/08

The more I read about Rick Warren, the more I like him.

Recently, the pastor of Saddleback Church in California hosted a forum in which he interviewed Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain. The forum itself was outstanding, featuring insightful questions from Warren that allowed both would-be presidents to articulate their vision for the United States while touching on issues important to evangelicals - the primary audience for the forum.

But that's not what has me excited. Rather, it's Warren's capable articulation of a third way to fight global poverty he laid out in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal.

It's especially useful now because we live in a unique time when the world's most famous rock star is almost as well-known for his philanthropy as his music. Hollywood is also filled with aspiring philanthropists who are doing everything from starting schools in South Africa to adopting children from southeast Asia. Additionally, organizations like Red, ONE and Invisible Children have (thankfully) made philanthropy a trendy new activity for many idealistic young college students.

These are all great, praiseworthy things. But there's also a problem. Most of the time wannabe philanthropists like you and me are presented with two choices: The so-called "compassionate conservatism" of President Bush or the well-intentioned big-government solutions trumpeted some on the political left.

And for many of us, neither choice is that attractive.

Let's start with the compassionate conservatism of President Bush. The basic problem is that it is neither compassionate nor conservative. If it were either of those things, it might actually work.

Over the past eight years, President Bush's efforts to relieve poverty have left much to be desired. Go spend some time on the Gulf Coast if you don't believe me. And he has managed to increase the national debt far more than Bill Clinton ever did. That's hardly consistent with the fiscal conservatism in which the Republicans (supposedly) believe.

Most of us look at this first morally and monetarily bankrupt approach and understandably reject it. We then turn to the Democrats, hoping they'll present us with viable ways to aid our neighbors and help the less fortunate.

But the Democrats continue to propose that bigger government is a viable solution despite the fact that anyone with any historical knowledge can tell you that larger government has never helped reduce poverty in meaningful, sustainable ways.

It's a hard lesson to learn, but it's one that I wish more of my friends would accept. Over the past two years, I've had to learn it myself.

Two years ago I would've identified myself as a Marxist. Then I spent a summer in Africa, a continent who about 40 years ago saw roughly 35 nations become independent and adopt socialist policies.

Today, every single one of those socialist states is poorer than it was at independence.

Only one country has seen a tremendous increase in wealth since independence. That country is Botswana, one of the few that allowed for a free market. When diamonds were found in their country, the government didn't seize the funds to ease poverty. Rather, they let the market do its work, and today the annual GDP is considerably higher than it was at independence, when most of the nation was made up of subsistence farmers.

And this is where we should return to Pastor Warren and the third way.

Halfway through the Aug. 23 editorial, we find this remarkable excerpt, "While many pastors admonish their congregates to 'teach a man to fish,' Mr. Warren says that is 'not good enough.' He explains, 'If all you do is teach a guy to fish, you create a village of fishermen, and everybody does the same thing. You have to develop a complex economy… The answer to poverty is business development, not charity. Trade, not aid."

Pastor Warren gets it. The best way to address poverty relief is not simply bigger government spending to provide funds for well-intentioned-but-generally-ineffective aid programs. Nor is it to claim to be a compassionate conservative but ignore poverty until pressured to action, only to then send ineffective and insufficient aid.

Rather it is to train and empower individuals to pursue specific careers in order to develop industries within their local economies. That is how nations develop. And that is how they can escape the seemingly-endless cycle of poverty in which so many of them are trapped.

The solution doesn't rest in government but in privately-owned Non-Governmental Organizations, such as Invisible Children, or in faith-based groups like Warren's Saddleback Church, which has done extensive work throughout Africa.

If we're serious about fighting poverty, this is the way to do it. It might be harder than creating a government aid program, but in the long run, it's better for both the philanthropists and the victims of poverty.



Jake Meador is a junior English and history major. Reach him at jakemeador@dailynebraskan.com.

---

© Copyright 2008 Daily Nebraskan

http://media.www.dailynebraskan.com/media/storage/paper857/news/2008/09/04/Opinion/Meador.Pastor.Warrens.Poverty.Plan.A.Viable.Solution-3414686.shtml