Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released new hunger statistics that might be called hair-raising, especially in Oregon. In 2009, according to the USDA, more than 50 million Americans, including 17 million children, lived in what it calls “low food security” households. (For a department that oversees hog slaughtering, the USDA keeps its language very delicate.)…. Oregon’s menu looks especially bleak. After improving earlier in the decade, Oregon’s “very low food security” level, averaged over 2007-2009, was 6.6 percent of the state’s population — the third-highest level in the country. Oregon’s rate rose from 4.4 percent — tied with Washington for the third-fastest jump in the country.
One of the things that never ceases to amaze me during our seemingly never-ending recession is the degree to which some folks will go to enforce the status quo. In an era when more and more people go hungry in this, the most powerful and prosperous country in the world, far too many people seem to find nothing amiss. “I got mine…you can damn well get your own” seems like a particularly cruel and heartless attitude, particularly when the gap between those who have and those who don’t is as wide as it’s ever been. When the super-rich can act as if their financial success as their divine birthright, what hope do those at the other end of the spectrum have? If a person can’t find it within themselves to look out for those less fortunate, what claim to humanity does one really have?
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the idea that terms like “food insecurity” is something that’s even allowed to be part of the public vernacular in this country. How is it that Americans can stand idly by while other Americans live in a situation in which they are uncertain about where their next meal might be coming from? What part of that equation can be thought to be acceptable by any American with anything resembling a functional conscience?
I believe in this country, and I believe in capitalism. What I don’t believe in is the idea that we’re all on our own, that if you don’t have the resources to feed yourself and your family, it’s because something is wrong with you. We’re better than this…aren’t we? When did we become a people defined by our selfishness and a lack of concern for the well-being of others? When did we become OK with the idea that we’re ultimately responsible only for ourselves and our own?
I’m not saying that we all need to begin channeling Mother Teresa…but then again, what would be so wrong with that? Have we really become so cold and indifferent for those adversely impacted by our sour economy that we’ll willingly and eagerly turn a blind eye to their suffering? Why are efforts to look after fellow Americans decried as “Socialism”?
If wanting to making sure that we see one of our primary responsibilities as caring for one another, for ensuring that no American ever has to suffer from “food insecurity”, makes me a Socialist, then that’s a label I’ll wear with pride. If believing that we’re better when we can see our way clear to caring for the least among us is something that you think is inherently wrong, I’d submit that you really need a way to look beyond your narrow self-interest. Caring for your fellow man is, if nothing else, a truly basic Christian (and American) quality. Given that Thursday is Thanksgiving, it might be a good time to reflect upon your good fortune and recognize that this holiday season there will be far too many Americans going hungry.
Perhaps a little more “Socialism” might be in order this year….
