Kamp Krusty Announces: The ONE (Professor) Campaign to End Poverty

Food for thought, from my venti coffee cup:

The measure of genuine civilization, it has been said, is the quality of life for a nation's poorest and least privileged people. By that measure, we are barbarians. Our current level of inequality cannot be justified or sustained.
--Robert W. McChesney Author, media critic and professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Amen, Professor.  I don't know if he wrote that from his University office, or from his own home in the leafy, Urbana, Illinois neighborhood that we wanted to live in, but couldn't afford to. Doesn't matter.  What is noteworthy is that we have become like those barbarians, who were apparently chiefly noted for their inequalities of income. 

He's right.  But we need to think globally, too. That's why I'd like to propose a new global ONE campaign, a ONE campaign that ends poverty in Africa, one professor at a time.

The ONE (Professor) Campaign to End Poverty

Yes, this can work.  According to the American Association of University Professors, there are 122,000 full professors in the U.S., and nearly 200,000 more assistant and associate profs.  According to the ONE Campaign, if we give $25 bilion to Africa by 2010, we will reduce poverty by half!

The great news:  If American professors give half their gross income for just five years, that's $59 billion dollars -- enough to nearly completely wipe out poverty in Africa!

Yes, that's sacrifice, but not much, really.  Professor McChesney, for instance, hates inequalities, and surrendering half his income will still leave a gaping chasm between his lifestyle and the typical African's.  (Full professors in the U.S. make, on average, $95k per year.  Associates make $67k, assistants $56k.)  His lifestyle would yet be comfy, if perhaps less, relatively, kingly than the one he currently can lead.

It's a simple solution.  It will set a great example for all of us.  ONE professor at a time, ONE commitment to lifestyle change for the poor, and poverty is history.  This will likely mean fewer trips to Europe, yes.  And, in high cost-of-living areas, like Manhattan, forced experiences in communal living, eschewing the bourgeois concept of "private property."  Utopia!

Sure, this does involve a bit of sacrifice, which is somewhat foreign to the original ONE Campaign.  (Click here and see their "action" points, involving such sacrifices as wearing a cool wristband.  Orlando Bloom, does, you know.) 

There is, of course, this small matter:  The ONE approach doesn't tend to, you know, "work".  But let's set that aside for now.  This is simple.  ONE professor at a time, backing up her words with action, eradicating nearly all poverty in Africa by the end of 2010. 

There is reason for concern.  Professors tend to be liberals, and political liberals just aren't generous.  They like to keep their money.  They like nice things, and wind up conserving more stuff for themselves than, say, conservatives.  But when given the opportunity to make a difference on this scale, you know they'll put their dollars where their coffee cup quotables are. 

If they don't, well, we'd have to suspect they really don't believe what they're saying.  Say what you want about Ted Haggard, but he says he's sorry.

After all, making an actual, longitudinal, hope-inspiring difference in the life of a child, through already-existing, grassroots structures run by nationals?  That's thirty-two hard-earned dollars a month.  But "standing up for justice"?  It's priceless.  Literally.  It doesn't cost anything.   

And I know our academics will more than take a stand.  They're no barbarians.  I, for one, welcome our new leaders-by-example, and salute them.

Comments

[thecachinnator]

Well said, sir. ONE is nice, but Compassion is better. What if Bono, (a man I do admire), got behind Compassion? Couldn't we do better by focusing on the ministries that are working rather than always starting up competing minsitries to accomplish the same goals?

[Douglas_Coombs]

I'm not convinced that the ONE campaign is really as ineffective as it is made out to be. If the ONE campaign objectives were actually implemented as envisioned, I think it would do an awful lot of good. The reason that our foreign aid has failed miserably in the past is that it really isn't meant to help the poor. Foreign aid is a tool our government uses to wield influence and throw our weight around. We need access to Africa's raw materials and abundant natural resources. As former Secretary of State George Shultz stated flatly in 1985, "Our foreign assistance programs are vital to the achievement of our foreign policy goals." George Shultz, "Foreign Assistance Request for FY 1986," Current Policy, no. 656 (U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Washington, DC, February 19, 1985).

While individual child sponsorship is a wonderful thing that can help kids get out of poverty, these solutions by themselves will not lift the developed world out of poverty. There does need to be top level planning and restructuring of economies that only governments can do.

The ONE campaign has the potential to be quite effective, if the goal is to alleviate poverty and not to secure our access to other countries resources.

Doug

PS: Some of the objectives of the ONE campaign (such as debt relief) are so Biblical, I have a hard time imaginining why some Christians are so opposed to them. We have loaned large amounts of money to nations in Africa and just the interest alone consumes vast amounts of the GDP of those countries. Scripture speaks of the borrower being the servant of the lender and has pretty strong condemnations of usury.
http://www.afrodad.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=28&pop=1&page=0

Proverbs 28:8-9 (KJV):
8 He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.
9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.

[Brant]

I'm not opposed to the ONE campaign. I do find that personal sacrifice to pull a few children, and their families, out of poverty, more effective than wearing a wristband or purchasing, for myself, a red iPod.

Compassion sponsors more than a half-million kids, by the way, using a grassroots, home-grown approach. Compare that not to U.S. foreign aid objectives, but to attempts by the IMF, the World Bank, the UNCF, the WTO, etc. in the past that have made things worse, not better. That's why I link to the book.

Something no one has commented on: Do you really *believe* what the ONE campaign is saying? We can halve poverty in Africa with 25 billion more dollars, in block grants?

This is part of the absurdity I thought I was pointing out in the original post. Do you really, deep down, suspect that block payments of $50 billion will end poverty in Africa? Or might something deeper be at work?

For those who agree with the maxim about the same approaches yielding the same results, I encourage you to join with us at $160 a month and sponsor five children. I'll make a free wristband for you.

[Shaun Groves]

Doug, you're just wrong. Sponsoring individual children, meeting their physical and spiritual needs through the local church assisted by Compassion International DOES and HAS reshaped national economies.

Compassion started in South Korea fifty some odd years ago. Friend and president of COmpassion, Wes Stafford, went to South Korea a couple years ago to meet with pastors. He was to tell them that Compassion was going to begin leaving South Korea and he was to ask these pastors to begin mobilizing their congregations to sponsor children in others nations now that South Korea no longer has the child poverty problems it did fifty years ago.

As Wes began explaining to a room full of pastors what it is Compassion does and why these pastors should get involved in helping children elsewhere, he was interrupted. A man stood, a pastor of a church with more than 100,000 members (not the biggest in South Korea) and said he knew about Compassion already because he grew up being taken care of by Compassion.

Then another stood. And another. And on and on. The room was full of pastors, leading massive congregations and small, who had been raised by Compassion.

The congregations are full of teachers, doctors, lawyers, house painters, computer specialists, politicians etc. A Compassion child grows up to be a pastor or a parent, to have a job and some role in society. I've met grown Compassion children: a nurse, a mechanic, two teachers and an economics advisor to the president of a nation - a cabinet member.

Changing individual's lives DOES change a nation - it just takes fifty years or more. The Church isn't the fastest agent of change, but it is, I believe, the most powerful.

And, there is nothing good only governments can do.

[Douglas_Coombs]

"Do you really *believe* what the ONE campaign is saying? We can halve poverty in Africa with 25 billion more dollars, in block grants?"

If that was all they were advocating, I'd say that it is false at face value. However, their proposals are much more complex than that.

Doug

[thecachinnator]

Doug makes some excellent points. The ideals behind ONE are noble, good, and often Biblical. Brant, you seem to be questioning its methods more than its ideals, though. Will throwing money at the problem help? Not on its own, no. This goes to something that Doug said:

"There does need to be top level planning and restructuring of economies that only governments can do."

This is probably quite true. So long as that government isn't crippled with corruption and institutional incompetence.

My question is, from our point of view as Christians giving charity, how much do we tie the amount we give to what we perceive is being done with that money? Do we give regardless because we are commanded to give? Or do we make sure that the gift will actually do some good before giving? How much do we do that? It's something I've been dealing with for quite a while. I'm not sure I have it all worked out.

[richmart]

It seems to me that ONE and CI compliment one another rather than compete with each other. CI attempts to do something to alleviate present day suffering and improve local conditions in a way that provides hope for community-level reductions in the level of future suffering. However, there are systemic problems due to corrupt and/or morally bankrupt governments that can create so much suffering that it overwhelms the locally-oriented efforts of organizations like CI. Improving these systemic problems, as ONE focuses on, could potentially make the work of organizations like CI more effective.

[Brant]

Again, I don't oppose ONE. I don't think they're at odds, either.

But someone, please, demonstrate for me how ONE is doing something that's truly changing something systemically. I guess I'm missing that. It seems to be presumed that Data, or Bono, or Jeffrey Sachs's approach will make for radical structural change. I just don't understand why this is presumed. I lack this knowledge.

Yes, the governments are corrupt and morally bankrupt. Absolutely. Someone please show me how ONE addresses and changes that, and this will all make sense to me. I am willing to learn.

I'm being no more simplistic in my articulation of ONE's goals than their own website. I can't find out much there, to be honest, of how this works. I do know I'm not being asked to be cool like celebrities, and not sacrifice a thing. Some good will come of it, yes. I don't see the systemic change we're presuming.

Shaun, thanks for the terrific story. THAT is systemic change.

[Douglas_Coombs]

"But someone, please, demonstrate for me how ONE is doing something that's truly changing something systemically."

From my vantage point, ONE is not a program so much as it is an awareness campaign. The goal is to move foreign aid up the priority level of governments and individuals with increased aid and improved delivery of that aid.

Regarding the increased governmental foreign aid, ONE isn't advocating that the money be directed to dishonest governments. As their own website says, "Directed to honest governments, private charities and faith-based organizations, this support would provide the tools and resources they need to really make a difference."

The issues that ONE embraces are:
AIDS, Extreme Poverty, AID, Education, Water, Food, Corruption, Orphans, Trade, Debt Cancelation

Whether or not ONE is effective depends on many factors, several of which are out of the control of ONE, since they are simply an advocacy group and not an actual aid organization, like Oxfam, World Vision, CFCA, Care or Compassion.

What I appreciate about ONE is that they are drawing attention to some very serious problems and helping people to get more involved. I know that I have personally learned much more about the systemic problems associated with extreme poverty and the foreign aid that is supposed to help. Before ONE came along, I had no idea that the US used foreign aid as a means to dump heavily subsidized agricultural products overseas, driving local farmers out of business and worsening the food shortages. I had no idea that the extent to which foreign aid was used to further American interests instead of really trying to help those out there. The US government won't change their practices without pressure from constituents and changes in how our foreign aid programs are run. Constituents won't put pressure on their representatives if they are not aware of the nature and extent of the problem.

One way that I think ONE has been most effective was in influencing trade negotiations. ONE was able to highlight several of the problems with foreign aid and help negotiate fairer trading rules. The problem that I saw there was that many of the countries gave lip service to change during governmental negotiations (e.g., G8 talks at Gleneagles, Scottland), but didn't really do anything back home to limit things like domestic food subsidies that are greatly harming farmers in poor countries.

Perhaps, one of the most important contributions of ONE is that discussions like this are even taking place. ONE has greatly raised the awareness level among many people, especially the youth. Perhaps most people will simply go along for the ride as long as it is a fad, but others will be moved to action and some to a lifetime of advocacy.

Regarding the statement, "Compassion International DOES and HAS reshaped national economies." I don't think it is quite so simple. Sure, CI has played a role in S. Korea. I know the stories well, since I sponsor a kid through them. However, there are many other factors that went into making S. Korea the success story that it is. In the big picture, Compassion was just one small cog in the wheel.

Doug

[shepherdess]

"My question is, from our point of view as Christians giving charity, how much do we tie the amount we give to what we perceive is being done with that money? Do we give regardless because we are commanded to give? Or do we make sure that the gift will actually do some good before giving? How much do we do that? It's something I've been dealing with for quite a while. I'm not sure I have it all worked out."

You can sponsor a child in Liberia through African Christians Fellowship International or Concerned Children. www.childrenconcerned.org www.acfinet.org
Two of our children are currently there working in 3 of ACFI's orphanages.

[Douglas_Coombs]

BTW: I suggest adding another category to the existing two How about, Modest Proposals, Etc., Posts that Will Cost Me the Democratic Nomination AND I Just Lost My Last Cool Point?

After all, to even question the effectiveness of the ONE campaign is a major gaffe for a public persona like yourself. Not quite as bad as Richards' rant at the comedy club, but getting up there. No matter how simplistic and unrealistic ONE is presented by certain people, it is gospel truth. Remember that. There is no problem that money can't fix. If you don't believe me, just ask Ted Kennedy or the DC school board.

Doug

[Seth Ward]

What about a "One Preacher Campaign?"

I wonder what the cash flow would look like if you took all the pastoral salaries and shaved off from 50k on up.

[soebs]

"However, there are many other factors that went into making S. Korea the success story that it is."

I believe producing one SoeBeck Joel Song is one major factor.