Americans believe in helping those in distress...as long as they're not American

What’s so civil about war, anyway?

• Guns & Roses

Few who possess even the barest shred of compassion could argue against using the American military to protect and free 40,000 Iraqi Yazidis trapped without food and water by a radical Islamofascist army bent on their extermination. It’s a humanitarian mission, the sort of thing America has always stood (and should stand) for. America helps those in dire straits. We ship food, clothing, and medical supplies around the world to places desperately in need of assistance. Sometimes our military is involved, sometimes it’s a civilian effort. Either way, we live in a land of plenty, and helping those in need is part of what makes us who we are.

I admire Alan Grayson for his political courage and willingness to say what must be said, in this instance I think he’s dead wrong. If we can’t protect those on the verge of extermination by a malevolent, intolerant rabble of religious zealots, what do we stand for? Sure, I know the next question will be, “So whom do we protect, and where do we draw the line and decline to get involved?” I only wish it was easy to elucidate where to draw that line, because I honestly don’t have an answer. I only know that stand on the sidelines while innocents are massacred is immoral and unAmerican.

Unfortunately, while we generally have few problems with foreign aid, providing aid to those in need within our own borders can be problematic. Americans too often define foreign aid as the compassionate thing to do…while also holding that aiding fellow Americans is “socialism,” and “creating dependence on government.” I have no idea how we can value the lives and well-being of those outside our borders while simultaneously devaluing those with whom we share a common language and heritage. If we can bomb ISIS to protect 40,000 stranded and desperate Iraqi Yazidis- which I believe to be the humanitarian thing to do- why can’t we help those in Detroit unable to pay their water bills? Why can’t we ensure that EVERY American has access to basic healthcare? Why do we accept Americans going hungry even as we provide food to those in desperately poor Third World countries?

For whatever reason, we tolerate a greedocracy here at home, but we’re far more egalitarian and compassionate when it comes to suffering on foreign shores. If poor and hungry children in Appalachia were dropped into Africa, we’d be sending food, clothing, medical supplies, and/or anything else that could help ease their suffering. If you’re an American…well, handouts only create dependence, right?

We occupy a moral space that allows us to abhor using tax dollars to assist the poor, the sick, and the needy here at home even as we applaud doing the same for those in dire straits abroad. Foreign aid is “compassionate,” while aiding Americans is “aiding and abetting socialism.” It’s an attitude that leaves me scratching my head, because I can’t begin to understand the irrationality and coldness that seems to define it.

Poverty, suffering, and hunger are horrific things when experienced by those in the Third World. Here in America, those things are indicative of an attitude of dependence, a lack of seriousness and willingness to do for oneself. This may be an over-generalization (but only just), but Americans hate our own poor and hungry- perhaps because they recognize that there, but for the grace of God….

Perhaps if war broke out in Detroit….