Iain Duncan Smith and his flawed logic of ‘causation’…

Iain Duncan Smith is busy championing another perverse ‘logic’ in an attempt to justify the occurrence of many people living below acceptable levels of subsistence. For Smith, providing extra money for those near such low levels of subsistence can sometimes make the situation worse:

So, this narrative goes, a family living in poverty one day would wake up free from it the next, simply by a money transfer. Yet any right minded person must know that it needs more than that to set someone free. Something else in their lives needs to change. Ask yourself this: what happens to the children of a drug addict if you increase their welfare payments? Is their family really pulled out of poverty? When you measure the effect on real life outcomes, the extra money may actually have made things worse. You have failed to tackle the root cause of the problem – the damaging addiction. Unless something changes in the adult’s life, nothing changes for the child.

It’s a clear, desperate attempt to sooth the conscience. Money isn’t the cure per se, but money is a central reason for why so much inequality and social, political and environmental problems occur. Or more specifically, the actual relations that frame money transactions and the way money is constructed is the problem. For instance, oil itself has become a currency – it governs the capitalist relations, when oil runs out say if Saudi faces democratic protests and the cost of oil goes up, or if Saudi’s projections of how much oil they have is, as it is said to be, exaggerated – then the neoliberal global system the elite rely on is set for a radical challenge.

Looking at Smith’s arguments closely, it’s clear he conflates cause and effect. In attempting to justify taking money away from drug users he argues that doing so will actually help them get out of their habits (essentially why the government plans to take benefits away from those who don’t stop taking drugs when the government says so), that the reason for why they have a drug habit is because we are giving them more money. His ‘root’ cause is the addiction itself.

When in fact, poverty itself is often the source of the addiction; and the current source of this is neoliberalism. Furthermore, taking away someone’s benefits can actually make the situation ten times worse. Instead of treating drug users as criminals, we should see it through a medical perspective. We should recognise the values that inform our drug system’s stratification, where harmful drugs such as alcohol and smoking are part of our culture even though they are often more dangerous. The “something else” that Smith is talking about is explicitly ignored. In this perverse logic, it is assumed that poverty itself will help remove the addiction. Smith talks about seeing the situation in a more complex way, but his reductive logic that providing people more money is the source of problems such as drugs, is illogical.

However, excessive money is a problem. But not for those at the bottom struggling to survive. It’s a problem when we have greed, profit and illogicality governing our political economic system; this belief that cutting bonuses, taxing the banks and radically reforming such institutions so that they are democratic is a ‘threat’ to our existence is also illogical. Well, it might be a threat to those who wish to prevail the status quo, but for the most, especially those that Smith is stigmatising, it can make all the difference. This society is polarised, and it is only getting worse. Smith and the government are focusing upon the wrong people. This perverse mentality that those at the bottom are to blame is infuriating.

Such ‘logic’ is the epitome of what is wrong with this government’s direction. Such conflation of cause and effect and simplistic acontextual arguments are damaging. The problems we have in society are a lot more complex than throwing money at people, yes. However, we can’t deny that many people live below acceptable levels of income whilst many at the top are living like aristocrats. This has to stop. Blaming the poor through some sort of discursive destruction has to stop.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Iain Duncan Smith and his flawed logic of ‘causation’…

  1. I agree just “giving” money is NOT the answer, for the reasons you stated. BUT encouragement to work, without loosing ANY benefits, would be much more helpful, when people are in work they feel more secure (generally). But when the system takes away any benefits that encouragement is no longer there. Why work to earn the same or less?
    The country needs also though to provide more work opportunities, so without both reforms, it still wont help the poor. A fundamental change is needed, as I believe the Green party is probably the only one that has such policies.

  2. I totally agree! Hence why I said that taking benefits away makes the situation worse. Benefit levels are very low already. They don’t need a further reduction!

    And yes, that’s true. The system we have NEEDS unemployment, to keep prices down etc. We need a radical change of our existing political, economic and social relations if things are to get fairer.

  3. Another excellent article, Jane! Spot-on analysis and careful logical argument to de-construct a false or flawed argument!

    Tories use the subjective part of the mind, and are driven by their emotions and fears.
    Thus, to IDS, the perceived problem is that the State is giving monies to the poor, when those monies could otherwise be given to the super-rich by way of tax-breaks. IDS believes that the poor have too much money, and the super-rich don’t have enough. To add insult to this perceived injury, the poor then go and fritter the monies away on addictions and suchlike.

    The objective view would be the opposite and would gauge that the addictions are just a means of running away from problems such as abject poverty and absence of hope.

    So, is IDS attempting a calculated con to deceive the gullible … or is he just guilty of sincere mis-perception based on his own subjective outlook … or a mix of both?
    A clue may be in the aggressive assertion that “any right minded person must know” – a technique used by other Tories, too – and the manipulative reference to children.
    This signals that he thinks intellectual bullying and emotional blackmail will win the argument for him.

    I agree with your thinking on the neoliberal economic system. Hopefully more and more people will come to see the truth of the matter. Neoliberalism does not work, either in hard-headed economics or in human/social terms. Excessive greed & profit are encouraged, but excessive greed & profit kill the system.
    er, does obsession with profit count as a dangerous addiction? lol

  4. Thanks for the comment, glad you like the blog.

    Agreed, Tories are driven by a perverse logic of what is ‘fair’. That is a good way of looking at it, it can be seen as a bullying tactic.

    I hope more people challenge the neoliberal system too, it is a key route of our problems and nothing short of radical change will help sort this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s