Neo-Conservative ideals benefit only a select few in society, this does not include those who are minorities in society, for example people with disabilities. Balanced budgets and severe limits on government interference, means there is a greater possibility of fluctuation in the market and no money from taxes. Meaning money that is used for compensation and towards pension funds goes can go down, so people may find themselves in poverty after attaining a disability. If we were to believe as the neo-conservatives do, that mankind is inherently self serving then their whole basis for supply side economics wouldn’t work.(Mullally, 2007) Ruling elite would always want more and that greed wouldn’t allow the wealth of a state to trickle down to all its citizens. The people who are notably more vulnerable become even more so. But this is a “natural” inequality, and the need for prejudices is a core value of Neo-Conservatism.
Though people with physical disabilities may fall under the “Deserving Poor” category,(Mullally, 2007) they aren’t seen as an asset to Neo-Con society, and are highly undervalued. This sentiment is then mirrored through other actions; minimal financial compensation is given and that it is up to the family to provide care. To be raised in a society that oppresses you rather then uplifts you would be an extremely disheartening life to lead.
The quality of life of any citizen should be the responsibility of their government, it is not a “private” matter as the Neo-Conservatives would have you believe. There is not enough emotional support programs available and not enough program openings to accommodate all the children and adults with disabilities that require them. Social welfare spending would finance these programs; it would also support lower-income households, typically, though not exclusively.("Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States", 2004) If a physical or mentally disabled person can’t work and are only receiving minimal compensation they would be or likely become part of the lower-income households. If we are to be judged by how we treat the poorest amongst us, then our claim to high civilization has been challenged by the deteriorating history of our social welfare policy.(Johnston, 1986) In contrast the Neo-Cons see the welfare state as inefficient and too big and expensive,(Mullally, 2007) preferring to minimize it further and to privatize everything on top of it all. So that the government doesn’t run the programs but private companies do.
Companies and capitalist corporations often have Neo-Conservative beliefs and would rather limit compensation for disabilities attained during employment. When profits are at the forefront the conditions and well being of their employees are far behind. Current government intervention may upset the Neo-Conservative but affirmative action policies served as an effective punishment for prejudiced employers,("Affirmative Action has Slipped Off its Foundation", 2010) and encourages them to hire people with a physical disability.
In conclusion a Neo-Conservative state only benefits the "Trumps" of the world, not the average Joes, and certainly not anyone who is unable to meet their standard of “normal” like people with a disability.
Holly L
References
Anonymous; Affirmative action has slipped off its foundation .Winnipeg Free Press, July 29 2010
Johnston, R.(1986). A Golden Opportunity to Reform Welfare . Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Aug 29, 1986. pg. A.19
Mullally, B.(2007). The New Structural Social Work. Oxford University Press Canada
Unknown; Spending on Social Welfare Programs in Rich and Poor States(June 30 2004)
No comments:
Post a Comment