Sarah Jessica Parker on why we should give compassion a chance
North Texas Daily, 01/2004

Sex in the City star Sarah Jessica Parker seemed rather concerned about the Bush administration and the changes they attempt to bring about in downsizing government.

"I'm worried about the kind of cuts he might make in domestic programs that mean something to a lot of people, including members of my family, who depend on certain things from the government," Parker said in a (2001) Washington Post article.

My first impression upon reading the mutimillionaire actress' statement was her family must be poor and eligible for government assistance. If her family "depends" on government programs, then they must be in need of food, clothing or shelter.

Then again, maybe the family members in question are dependent on federal grants to operate their businesses. Several possibilities may exist, given Parker's vague choice of words. A public figure cannot be too careful while speaking the media.

But from the gist of it, one might be led to think that Parker is not taking good care of her family. Strangely, this has not tarnished her image and people continue to watch her show.

Imagine what would happen if George W. Bush made a similar statement. I know several liberals who would sprint to their computers to compose some disgruntled letters about how "uncompassionate" Bush is toward even his own family, and how he might also neglect the hypothetical starving, huddled masses of this nation.

In reality, the Bushes have spread personal wealth and business savvy among the members of the family,

Given the evidence, I would much rather be a Bush than a Parker! I could just imagine how shafted I would feel if I had a multimillionaire actress as my next of kin, and yet still be dependent on WIC and government cheese.

And if the actress were involved in several charitable crusades, I would think my famouse relative would have forsaken me altoghether.

Parker does actively volunteer for Planned Parenthood, AIDS research organizations and a liberal buffet of trendy social causes. She often participates in voter registration drives, claiming the organizations she supports will not get funding if Republicans are elected.

I suppose she feels the same way about her loved ones in regard to government funding. I wonder how her (then) husband Matthew Broderick feels about that? I hope he has a seperate bank account, for his sake.

Alas, Parker's sentiments are indicative of a general attitude many Americans today have about family responsibilities.

THROW AWAY FAMILY
Working with a church ministry at The Vintage Retirement VIllage in Denton, I have seen how many families (but not all) have a tendency to abandon the elederly when it becomes inconvenient to provide care.

Several residents at the Vintage have children in the Denton area who do not visit but once per year. Many of the residents are, almost ironicly, dependent on Medicare, Social Security, and other programs to pay rent and even survive.

I have to hold back my anger when I see the children of a financially neglected, lonely resident driving in a brand new Mercedes SUV for a rare visit. It makes one wonder what ever happened to priorities.

(Just talking with one of these lonely seniors will make their day -- try it sometime. They will literally feel stronger and more energetic after a lengthy conversation with someone who cares.)

INSTITUTIONALIZED NEGLECT
I think the families who neglet their loved ones are conditioned by society to believe the federal government will actually cover the entire costs of societal poverty and the aging population.

Somehow, the psuedo-gospel of welfare and Social Security permeated our culture and replaced notions of familial love and community action.

To reverse this trend, I say it's time we gave Bush's often-mocked message of "compassionate conservatism" a try. I say we give President Bush and our Republican lawmakers a shot at decentralization. The discipline of government downscaling would do wonders for the personal integrity of our people, as bad as it may look for those who propose such downsizing.

It's obvious that there are those who are able to help their families but chose not to, like Parker.

Liberal policy, as it stands now, unintentionally discourages personal action by promising superior health care and "universal" income to all Americans. We should not impressed, nor should we be fooled by such lame rhetoric.

Hopefully we have learned by now the lesson of the old proverb, "if you give a man an inch, he will take a mile." Following that our culture, in all its vanity and selfish greed, has abused the safety net of government welfare.

COMPASSION IN ACTION
If someone is in need of financial asistance, family, churches, and friends should be the first people to turn to. And if the person cannot find help from them, it is up to communities and churches to pick up the slack.

The federal government should be the very last resort for those in need of assistance, much like the Supreme Court is the last resort of a court appeal.

Maybe one day, when our priorities are back in the right place and a sense of community once again sweeps our land, we can gradually phase out federal benefits almost entirely in favor of a localized system of voluntary compassion.

But first, we must wean those like Parker who believe that government funding is the first, best answer to society's problems. We must openly defy their naively selfish, and dare I say socialistic, messages and teach compassion as the best remedy to poverty.