When I was first introduced at a party to my friend Ann's
boyfriend, Jim, the first words he spoke to me were, ``Do you
speak English?'' I wish I could say that I came up with some
witty retort but all I managed to answer was,``Yes.''
I'm used to people making presumptions based solely on my
appearance but sometimes their level of ignorance can be somewhat
disconcerting. Another common assumption people make about me is
that because I am Hispanic I am automatically liberal. This
presumption is only partially accurate.
Like most Americans I am liberal when it comes to civil rights
issues. However, on economic and fundamental moral issues I tend
to lean more towards a conservative platform.
Now there is a new political expression that's making me a tad
nervous. It is Compassionate Conservatism and it is being used to
describe the policies of Republican stars like George W. and Jeb
Bush. I sincerely hope that this term is meant just as a public
relations moniker and not an essential change in the principles
of conservatism.
Government programs that were deemed compassionate legislation
for the underprivileged have been a disastrous mistake. I've been
there and witnessed the harm that misguided bureaucratic policies
can do.
There are no neighborhoods anywhere on Staten Island that are as
destitute and dangerous as the mean streets of Spanish Harlem
were in the 1950's. I grew up on 110th Street between Park and
Lexington and lived there until the block was torn down to erect
housing projects.
We were one of the last families to move out but before the walls
came tumbling down we shared our building with huge rats, roaches
and junkies. What was even worse was the moral decay and
breakdown of the traditional family in the Latin American
community. When the government decided to go into the charity
business it unintentionally created havoc.
Welfare was once called home relief and it was something that was
supposed to be only a temporary measure. Nevertheless, it was
still shameful to proud people and we were on home relief for
only a brief period while my mother was hospitalized for a brain
tumor. My parents had separated when I was six and my mother
supported us by baby sitting neighbors' children and doing
laundry.
Other neighbors fell into the welfare trap and felt it was
simpler for the husband to leave home so his family could get
that free check. Inspectors would make surprise spot checks to
make sure that there was no man in the house and it was not
unusual for me to see a neighbor hiding on my fire escape while
the inspector visited his apartment. Eventually, it became
simpler for him to leave permanently.
Those free government checks can be very corrupting and can
destroy any personal initiative that we are born with. Why go to
work when a welfare check pays for rent and food and Medicaid
pays the doctor bills?
But while our living quarters were enormously inferior to that of
the welfare recipients I never grew depressed about it because I
knew that one day I'd be able to leave. My mother always
emphasized education as a way out of the barrio and she was
right. My former neighbors have remained on welfare for years and
are still in the same neighborhood.
Politicians who propose programs to alleviate the suffering of
the underprivileged have no concept of what living in this
subculture is like. Liberals who support them do so because it's
easier to pay higher taxes and let the government handle the
problem. I suspect that they also want to keep the undesirables
pacified and away from their ivory towers.
Having lived among these ``wretches '' I know that the biggest
problem in surviving these environments is surviving, period!
Crime and drugs are the greatest problems affecting poor people.
These are the areas where government intervention is most
necessary and critical. Catching criminal predators who prowl the
streets, locking them up and throwing away the key is the policy
that works. Mayor Guiliani's policies have proven this to be
true.
As deprived as I was in my youth of material goods, I was
fortunate enough to enjoy the benefits of a rich cultural
education thanks to the largesse of, believe it or not, rich
people.
Thanks to the philanthropic donations of the Astors, the
Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts, among others, all of the city's
vast cultural institutions were available free of charge to the
public.
Every Saturday I could go to the Museum of the City of New York
which held special children's programs in the auditorium. On
Sundays, there were free classical concerts where I would sit and
pretend that I lived in a normal household. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art was a magical place where mummies and Greek
sarcophaguses transported me to other eras.
On 105th Street and Fifth Avenue, there is a magical part of
Central Park called the Conservatory Garden. It is a replica of
an English garden with fountains and sculptured hedges that was
my refuge from the harsh reality of my home.
What saved my family and me from the harsh reality of the barrio
was not a federally funded program that might destroy any
initiative we might have. Rather it was the many acts of kindness
of individuals and charitable institutions that provided our
escape hatch to a better life.
Unfortunately, Congress in its ``soak the rich'' zeal enacted tax
laws targeting the wealthy and their charitable donations were
substituted with more worthy investments. Now the museums are no
longer free and have suggested admission prices that discourage
those with meager purses. It's ironic that whenever the rich are
targeted, it's the poor who get the shaft.
True conservatism means, as little government interference as
possible and a respect for each individual's right to the
independence that our forefathers died for. It is essentially
compassionate and compassion can not be legislated. It must come
from our own abiding love of humanity and a strong sense of
justice.
I suggest that the Bushes simply remind the public that the term
compassionate conservatism is redundant and leave it at that.