Let Them Eat Steak: Our Unchristian Contempt for the Poor

The story goes that a schnorrer (a Jewish professional beggar) managed to get some money for “eppes to eat” from a fellow on the street. He then turned to the nearest deli, sat down, and ordered a bagel with cream cheese and lox.

The fellow from whom he cadged the money had followed him in, and when he saw what the schnorrer was eating, exclaimed angrily, “Say, I gave you that money for regular food, not for a luxury!”

The schnorrer sighed. “When I don’t have money, I can’t afford a bagel with lox. When I do have money, you tell me I shouldn’t buy a bagel with lox. So tell me, Mr. Philosopher, when can I have a bagel with lox?”

When, indeed. Compare this with a meme I saw not too long ago: Apparently, someone had hit upon the idea that, instead of giving the less fortunate SNAP disbursements, we should give them MREs (Meals Ready to Eat), on the theory that “If they’re good enough for our soldiers in the field, they’re good enough for people on welfare!” 

Now, the MREs available today may be somewhat better tasting than those first introduced thirty years ago. Still, any soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who does/has done time in the field will tell you that they eat MREs, not because the freeze-dried meals are so tasty and nutritious, but because they don’t have a choice. They’re in some location or situation where setting up a field kitchen is not an option; when you’re in combat ops or on field maneuvers, you can’t just pop into McDonald’s for a Big Mac and fries. If they had another option (such as French field rations, which our Desert Storm troops loved), the MREs would go uneaten.

The implication seems to be: “Because soldiers in the field don’t have a choice of what to eat while risking themselves for our country, neither should these useless welfare recipients.” After all, they make bad decisions; otherwise, they wouldn’t be poor, right? I mean, we don’t want them buying steaks with their SNAP cards, do we? We’re not springing for luxuries!

So when can they rise to the dignity of eating steak?

Not even a Kobe steak, just the kind of choice sirloin you can buy at any grocery chain? Or even the poor kind of cut they serve at Denny’s in their cheap steak and eggs breakfast, for crying out loud?

In “A Spendthrift and Her Coat”, Mary Pezzulo writes movingly about having to replace a winter coat and being forced to choose between an ugly neon parka for which she could pay cash or a better-looking (second-hand) coat for which she would have to use her EBT card:

... [W]hen you’re poor and your clothes look too expensive, you get judged as being a spendthrift who ought to be more careful.

... If you look fashionable and well put together, people assume you spend too much on your appearance. If you look shabby, they blame your poverty on your shabbiness and ask why you can’t respect yourself a little more. If you’re slim they assume you waste your money on health food and if you’re fat they tell you to stop buying ice cream. If you don’t have kids you’re a trashy poor woman on birth control and if you do have kids you ought to keep your legs together to save money. But I especially didn’t want to look like the irresponsible spendthrift kind of poor person. That’s my least favorite set of insults.

I feel keenly for Pezzulo because I worked several years in the quick-service restaurant (QSR) industry while going to college and (afterward) trying to get into some field that would take advantage of my education and skill. QSRs tend to be “resume stains.”

Contrary to popular right-wing belief, fast-food jobs aren’t “designed for teenagers.” Having been on the other side of the hiring process, I can tell you most owners and managers would rather have adults — particularly adults who have a strong work ethic and are willing to put up with a lot of stress and customer abuse for a mere pittance of a wage. Such adults aren’t “purple squirrels.” But we immediately tag adults who do take QSR jobs as lacking intelligence, ambition, and/or good judgment (or proper immigration documents). Any and every mistake they make on your order, which usually takes longer to make than you expect it to, “proves” this negative assessment. “You’re only human,” sang Billy Joel; “you’re supposed to make mistakes” — but not if you work in QSRs, where anything less than perfection justifies the lousy wages you make.

Why are we Americans so horrible to the poor? Of all the derogatory stereotypes we Americans propagate about our fellow citizens, few are as widespread or as pernicious as those we hold about the poor. To be poor in America is not merely to be unfortunate but to be intellectually weak and morally depraved. Being poor by itself isn’t enough of punishment; we must strip them of every last shred of self-respect and rub their faces in their indigence until they either die or magically transform themselves into computer programmers and securities traders.

And we tell ourselves that our assumptions of their faults have “sufficient foundation” (CCC 2477) because we’ve taken our stereotypes to be axioms, neither needing nor admitting of proof. But when we make such assumptions and judgments, we’re not morally superior. On the contrary, we’re hard-hearted and small-minded, unsuited for God’s mercy because we know so little of it.

Tell me, my fellow Catholics and Christians: Would you refuse to buy a beggar a hot dog off the rollers at QuikTrip if you knew he was Christ in disguise? Would you be so contemptuous of the immigrant behind the counter at that QuikTrip? Would you tell that woman at the grocery store with her nine kids, buying groceries with a SNAP card, that “you need to keep your legs closed” if you knew your sentence at the Final Judgment would depend on your actions? Because it just might, my friends (Matthew 25:31-46).

Our duty is to give to the poor, not to shame or pass judgment on them. Is it really worth your eternal soul to begrudge a poor person one small slice of the comfort and dignity you take for granted?