RIP Bob Kaufman
One reason I like Baltimore is guys like A. Robert Kaufman, who died Friday. I disagreed with the lifelong socialist on most things, although not his deprecation of the war on drugs. I would argue with him when he called to chide me for columns he deemed too capitalist (which was just about all of them!)
But the presence of fringe voices on the left is the sign of a healthy, tolerant community. They can convey an idealistic sense of how things should be that we should hold in our hearts, even if the means they advocate are wholly impractical. Like many extreme liberals, Bob, from what I could tell, possessed little understanding of economic incentives, of socialism's fatal flaw of bad economic information or indeed of how capitalism, and not anything done by government, brought humans out of the squalor of the 17th century and into modernity.
But his motives were pure, and he never wavered. The cliche has it that a liberal is just a latent conservative who's never been mugged. But after Bob got hit in the head with a brick by a would-be robber, not only was he as lefty as ever; he used the occassion to decry the war on drugs:
The attacker "was so desperate for a fix that he resorted to doing this," Kaufman told the Sun at the guy's sentencing. "Both he and I are victims of the drug trade. If he had been able to go to a clinic and get what he needed, we both wouldn't be here. Now he has to go to prison. ... I wish him the best of luck while he is there."
Here's Kaufman's last letter to the Sun, published in early 2008:
The Sun's editorial "Ending homelessness" (Jan. 17) is inexcusably misleading.It points out that there are 3,000 homeless people in Baltimore and that the jewel of the mayor's plan is that "within the decade, 500 units would be rented to individuals or families who have been homeless for a long time or who have multiple problems."
At that rate, it would take 60 years to house Baltimore's 3,000 homeless people. Most of them would be dead by then.Worse still, those "500 units" within 10 years won't even be new apartments or houses. Presumably, they will merely be transferred from 500 other low-income subsidized housing residents who are almost as needy, and who, as a result, might well become homeless themselves.
What would be gained?
In the meantime, the impending economic collapse of capitalism will certainly increase homelessness by hundreds or thousands.
To herald such puny promises as an "ambitious" plan is to mightily deceive the public.
A. Robert Kaufman
Baltimore
Comments
"how capitalism, and not anything done by government, brought humans out of the squalor of the 17th century and into modernity"
Read a history book or two on Victorian Era after the birth of the industrial revolution. Child labor, overwork, extreme poverty were the results. US Laws restricting child labor, giving us the 8 hour workday, and a minimun wage were government jumping in and defending us against private enterprise.
You really should not be so dogmatic, Jay.
Hi Brandy. You're right, it was an overstatement. Government set the stage for capitalism by creating property rights, courts and so forth. And yes, government did step in to restrain capitalism's terrible excess. But, like it or not, government was the secondary force; capitalism was the primary force. Thanks for correcting me. JH
Posted by: NO_Way | December 28, 2009 9:40 PM
Secondary force? I dispute that. Industrial revolution may have given people sanitation, but sanitation would not be needed if there were still feudalism and IR did not occur as there would not have been urban crowding. Medical advances, pasteurization, immunizations, nutrition advanced life expectancy, but capitalism was not needed for this, just compassionate people.
Of course, feudalism had its problems: you had to have many kids in order to have help to tend the land. Also, there was little chance of upward mobility, but this is true with capitalism as well.
The reason why I said not to be so dogmatic is because you people who glorify capitalism tend to see it with rose-colored glasses. What we have now that is called capitalism would have even horrified Adam Smith. A few at the top making the decisions getting richer while the 95% get squeezed more and more.
Never heard of the person that you mention above who died, but I do not glorify capitalism, feudalism, or socialist regiemes who clam to be for the people and the people don't have a say in how anything is run. I say none of the above and start from scratch.
brandy
Posted by: NO_Way | December 28, 2009 11:01 PM
I am always pleased when I read something as logical as his final letter to the Sun. Although I disagree with his assertion that "hundreds of thousands" would be made homeless by the current economic downturn, I wish that more people would publicly call out publicity stunts, disguised as humanitarian saves. Well done, Bob, and I'm sorry I'm listing this posthumously.
And thanks for posting this, Jay.
Posted by: Laura | December 29, 2009 12:19 PM
He was right on the drug war and foreign policy, but on everything else he was wrong.
Posted by: Bill | December 29, 2009 11:26 PM