Book Reviews

Recently I wrote about subsidarity in relationship to Christian Organizations and I have also written about anti-federalism as a good way to lessen the power of government and increase the role of the church in America, but I now also have had my eyes opened to the problem of subsidarity. For those of you who have read about me, you know my soft spot is Camden, NJ. It just so happens for a class at Cal Poly we have to read a book entitled Savage Inequalities. The book is a bit dated, but I can tell you from personal experience that the chapter on Camden still rings true for Camden today.

Camden is one of the poorest cities in America and has one of the highest murder rates per capita as well. Reading about the education system is somewhat disheartening when you read that cities like Cherry Hill and Haddon spend thousands more on their students and have access to science labs, books and other resources that Camden does not have. According to the theory of subsidarity, the problem should be fixed by those in Camden, but what happens when the schools are so unequal, the problems so large, that the city seems unable to fix the massive systemic problems that arise? Do we expect them to take the proverbial boostraps and pull? It is good and nice to talk about subsidarity and anti-federalism, but is there a time when states need to step in and say, “It’s time to fix these cities?” Or will money not fix the problem?

See, I don’t think Camden needs more money. I think Camden needs better teachers. I don’t think Camden needs nicer houses, I think that the hundreds of boarded up houses need to be fixed by contractors who are willing to come in and install plumbing and basic sanitation so that the homeless can survive. But if all the contractors are living in Cherry Hill, what is going to compel them to come to an unsafe city and help people who are losing money? The problem of subsidarity is it is built on choice and people simply choose the wrong thing.

We can’t force people to care about Camden, can we?