Progressives don’t believe that people have the seeds of their own destruction within them… they project those onto society and deceive themselves into believing that human nature can be reprogrammed through consciousness raising.
This lie is a version of the Pelagian heresy. The late Poul Anderson, who Michael reminds me of, denounced it in his fiction, especially “Orion Shall Rise”. Every human has to make a choice between good and evil… and those progressives that pave a broad smooth path toward evil serve evil and, I believe, are ultimately consumed by evil.
Viktor Frankl has written a great deal of profound content on the role of evil in society. He was not very religious, but he was a Jew and was an inmate at Auschwitz. His concept of good and evil was more like Jung’s than that of conventional religion. He believes that there is a spiritual unconscious, which is not all that different from Jung, and saw people commit horrible betrayals and make heroic sacrifices at Auschwitz when they were barely conscious. He was certain that the choice between good and evil was both personal and below the conscious level. I don’t believe consciousness raising even touches that level.
Assuming that someone that says they believe in Salvation and Redemption means what they say is very questionable. My last denomination purged the people who did (along with a lot of people well to the right of me) and replaced all those old fashioned concepts with new up to date Marxist versions that omit the supernatural.
Oddly enough, Shellenberger insists on sticking to the dogma that high housing prices have nothing to do with homelessness, in spite of overwhelming research indicating that it does. Also, common sense, if I may invoke this. My mentally ill sister lives in a trailer in Twenty-Nine Palms which costs her $400/mo. She can afford this on her SSI and Food Stamps. She would not be able to afford to be housed in expensive San Francisco.
Of course, homelessness has many causes and it is no doubt true that mental illness and drug addiction are both causes of and the result of being homeless. He rightly blames policy changes in the 60s and 70s as the root cause of the explosion of the homeless population while ignoring the huge decrease in funding for HUD, which was the housing provider of last resort. Also, both Progressives and Conservatives supported the Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act, which released a huge population of mentally ill into our communities.
Housing First is a policy with a mixed bag. I think the fairest assessment of it from The Manhatten Institute (a right of center policy institute).
Key Findings
1) Housing First has not been shown to be effective in ending homelessness at the community level, but rather, only for individuals.
2) A Housing First intervention for a small segment of “high utilizer” homeless people may save taxpayers money. But making Housing First the organizing principle of homeless services systems, as urged by many advocates, will not save taxpayers money.
3) Housing is not the same as treatment. Housing First’s record at addressing behavioral health disorders, such as untreated serious mental illness and drug addiction, is far weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
4) Housing First’s record at promoting employment and addressing social isolation for the homeless is also weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
I am a little confused by Micheal's last statement:
As time passes, many Americans will see the consequence of treating what is fundamentally a problem of untreated mental illness and addiction as a problem of poverty, high rents, and NIMBYs.
I think there must be a "not" in there. I would agree that high rents and NIMBYs are a huge root cause but certainly not the only and probably not the primary cause of homelessness.
I agree with you that contingent housing is a better policy. San Francisco doesn't even have enough shelter beds. We need to address this first, then we can talk about forcing people off the streets and into treatment. Right now there is literally nowhere for the homeless to go.
Rose Bird and her friends would have castrated halfway houses even if they had been built. Blaming Ronald Reagan for a problem with the judicial system’s fingers all over it always seemed unfair to me.
Progressives don’t believe that people have the seeds of their own destruction within them… they project those onto society and deceive themselves into believing that human nature can be reprogrammed through consciousness raising.
This lie is a version of the Pelagian heresy. The late Poul Anderson, who Michael reminds me of, denounced it in his fiction, especially “Orion Shall Rise”. Every human has to make a choice between good and evil… and those progressives that pave a broad smooth path toward evil serve evil and, I believe, are ultimately consumed by evil.
Viktor Frankl has written a great deal of profound content on the role of evil in society. He was not very religious, but he was a Jew and was an inmate at Auschwitz. His concept of good and evil was more like Jung’s than that of conventional religion. He believes that there is a spiritual unconscious, which is not all that different from Jung, and saw people commit horrible betrayals and make heroic sacrifices at Auschwitz when they were barely conscious. He was certain that the choice between good and evil was both personal and below the conscious level. I don’t believe consciousness raising even touches that level.
Christians, or at least the Christians I grew up with, believe in Salvation and Redemption. I still do. I am guessing that you must not be religious.
Assuming that someone that says they believe in Salvation and Redemption means what they say is very questionable. My last denomination purged the people who did (along with a lot of people well to the right of me) and replaced all those old fashioned concepts with new up to date Marxist versions that omit the supernatural.
Thankfully we all still have Freedom of Religion and can find a church and denomination which resonates with our personal values.
Oddly enough, Shellenberger insists on sticking to the dogma that high housing prices have nothing to do with homelessness, in spite of overwhelming research indicating that it does. Also, common sense, if I may invoke this. My mentally ill sister lives in a trailer in Twenty-Nine Palms which costs her $400/mo. She can afford this on her SSI and Food Stamps. She would not be able to afford to be housed in expensive San Francisco.
Of course, homelessness has many causes and it is no doubt true that mental illness and drug addiction are both causes of and the result of being homeless. He rightly blames policy changes in the 60s and 70s as the root cause of the explosion of the homeless population while ignoring the huge decrease in funding for HUD, which was the housing provider of last resort. Also, both Progressives and Conservatives supported the Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act, which released a huge population of mentally ill into our communities.
Housing First is a policy with a mixed bag. I think the fairest assessment of it from The Manhatten Institute (a right of center policy institute).
Key Findings
1) Housing First has not been shown to be effective in ending homelessness at the community level, but rather, only for individuals.
2) A Housing First intervention for a small segment of “high utilizer” homeless people may save taxpayers money. But making Housing First the organizing principle of homeless services systems, as urged by many advocates, will not save taxpayers money.
3) Housing is not the same as treatment. Housing First’s record at addressing behavioral health disorders, such as untreated serious mental illness and drug addiction, is far weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
4) Housing First’s record at promoting employment and addressing social isolation for the homeless is also weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
I am a little confused by Micheal's last statement:
As time passes, many Americans will see the consequence of treating what is fundamentally a problem of untreated mental illness and addiction as a problem of poverty, high rents, and NIMBYs.
I think there must be a "not" in there. I would agree that high rents and NIMBYs are a huge root cause but certainly not the only and probably not the primary cause of homelessness.
The best available science finds Housing First:
- does NOT improve health outcomes
- may make addiction worse
- retains just *12%* of homeless after 10 yrs (Harvard 2021)
There are links to those claims in the article, and in the end notes of San Fransicko.
The better alternative is contingent housing, as I describe
You can read more here:
https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/why-california-governor-gavin-newsom
I agree with you that contingent housing is a better policy. San Francisco doesn't even have enough shelter beds. We need to address this first, then we can talk about forcing people off the streets and into treatment. Right now there is literally nowhere for the homeless to go.
Rose Bird and her friends would have castrated halfway houses even if they had been built. Blaming Ronald Reagan for a problem with the judicial system’s fingers all over it always seemed unfair to me.