State, national columnists

A conservative approach to fighting inequality

By From page A8 | March 17, 2014

In Washington right now, the debate over how to address inequality – whether of income or opportunity – rages almost daily, as scholars, policy wonks and politicians often far-removed from these problems wrangle over whose solution is best and whose affirmatively do harm.

And for Robert Woodson these detached academic notions and political food fights are part of the problem.

Woodson, a community development leader, founder of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise and product of the civil rights movement, has been challenging the way the U.S. addresses communities in need for more than 30 years, with notable success.

Empowering the marginalized is a challenge that conservatives, at least those with the courage of their convictions, should accept, particularly since Woodson’s approach to increasing opportunity for the poor relies heavily on conservative principles.

Since founding the center in 1981, Woodson has applied a theory of “social entrepreneurship” to tackling the most vexing social issues in cities like Milwaukee and Chicago.

“The principles of the free market economy should be applied in the social economy,” Woodson told me.

His organization goes into inner cities and struggling neighborhoods, finds people and programs indigenous to these communities that are providing effective localized solutions, and helps provide them with the resources, training and management they need to “grow along a continuum.”

He’s a kind of social venture capitalist. Although his nonprofit is always in search of capital.

The pursuit of virtue is an essential element of the battle against societal problems that Woodson believes can only be addressed through individual transformation, a lesson he says is illustrated by Christ’s teachings.

His approach to lifting people out of poverty and violence differs from that typically supported by liberals today, which has a penchant for ever-expanding, top-down government programs that cause “a lot of injury with a helping hand.”

Liberal policies, he told me, can be “equally injurious, indifferent and exploitative,” because they don’t empower the disadvantaged.

But he reserves some criticism for conservatives, who he says have made a “grievance industry” out of talking about what they’re against (“wasteful government programs”) instead of what they’re for when it comes to making a difference for the truly struggling.

“Conservatives,” he said, “think if you just make a logical argument” people will get on board. But such arguments fail to resonate with desperate people.

While Woodson largely seems to believe that conservative concepts make for sound public policy, he sees demonstrating how these beliefs make for a better life as the missing element of contemporary Republican politics.

Conservatives who recognize the wisdom of Woodson’s approach must be resolute, if only because after so many years of preaching his message Woodson remains optimistic.

“We only need one person who gets personally committed (to this cause) to change the party,” he says, and he may have found that person in Rep. Paul Ryan.

For some time now this dynamic duo has been traveling to low-income, violence-plagued communities on a listening tour to identify better ways to help the poor and marginalized of society.

Ryan, as House Budget Committee chairman, is uniquely positioned to use this personal experience – which Woodson believes to be crucial – to advance a conservative anti-poverty agenda.

The fight against income inequality has been named by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats as the issue they will run on in 2014. So voters will be hearing a lot about it this year.

But when voters hear liberals accuse conservatives of being cold-hearted, they shouldn’t assume that liberal approaches to lifting up the marginalized are good ones.

Thanks to people that like Woodson, conservatives can counter with detailed ideas of their own – which have the added benefit that they work.

Cynthia M. Allen is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Readers may send her email at [email protected].

Cynthia M. Allen


Discussion | 4 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • Mike KirchubelMarch 17, 2014 - 10:29 am

    Can anyone explain what her "conservative" approach to income inequality is? Cynthia Allen uses her whole article to say how great it is, especially compared to the "liberal" approach, but I can't figure out what it is she's talking about. Is it simply to give money to local groups? Ok. Go ahead, call that the "conservative" approach if you like, but show me the money. How much money will the Republicans put towards this end? This article's main purpose is make people believe that the conservatives have a real plan to fight inequality, when, in fact, they don't. It's just like the Republican version of Obamacare. What a load of Sowell.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksMarch 17, 2014 - 10:33 am

    Yeah Mike, I know I've pretty much worn this out (with very little support I might add), but you only need look at AZ and KS to see how their version of equality works. Run women! Run Gay citizens! Run minorities! Run atheists! The GOP will take your life, the truth is in your face!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelMarch 17, 2014 - 1:04 pm

    I guess the conservative approach to fighting inequality is to pretend they are doing something while pushing for more inequality.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895March 17, 2014 - 4:04 pm

    "While Woodson largely seems to believe that conservative concepts make for sound public policy, he sees demonstrating how these beliefs make for a better life as the missing element of contemporary Republican politics." Now there's an interesting statement. No quote of what Woodson really believes about "conservative concepts?" And yes, it's where the rubber meets the road that conservatives fall short. But does anything else matter? Income inequality is actually less of a problem than something slightly different: The unequal sharing of American success. Part of that has to do with insanely disproportionate compensation for a person's contribution (the highest paid people tend to be toadies to even higher paid people). But a bigger part has to do with how we share the wealth through tax policy. It's not "income redistribution" so much as it is progressive taxation that raises the benefits of being an American for even the poorest among us. If the income and wealth of the nation is being disproportionally distributed, tax high income and wealth more to provide benefits such better consumer protection, the world's best infrastructure and public spaces, cradle to grave education opportunities, national health care, and enhanced FICA payments (while also making them needs-based). Woodson's ideas are great, but Allen errs in morphing them into all that should be done. Wealth and high income should not be able to escape an obligation to plow much of it back into the country that produced it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2016 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.