A tragedy of modern American politics is that policies most loudly promoted in the name of compassion often end up doing the most harm—especially to those they claim to help.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the impact of liberal policies on the black community. Despite decades of progressive legislation, urban revitalization programs, and billions spent on social welfare, the breakdown of the black family, the entrenchment of poverty, and the rise in community crime have either persisted or worsened.
The failure of these policies is a direct result of the incentives put into place.
Before the rise of the modern welfare state, the black family, though often poor, was remarkably resilient. In 1930, nearly 80% of black children were born to married couples. Even during the height of Jim Crow, when discrimination was codified and opportunity scarce, black families managed to build strong communities, achieve educational gains, and rise into the middle class. That upward trajectory began to stall—not because of racism, but because of government programs that rewarded broken homes and penalized intact ones.
The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, a flagship of Great Society liberalism, did more to disincentivize marriage than any segregationist policy ever could. By providing financial support only when the father was absent, it created a perverse incentive structure: the presence of a working man in the home meant fewer benefits. The predictable result? Fewer men in the home. By the 1990s, over 70% of black children were born out of wedlock—a reversal not driven by cultural collapse, but by government interference in the most fundamental institution of civil society.
Thomas Sowell once observed that "the black family survived slavery, survived Jim Crow, but could not survive the liberal welfare state." That’s not hyperbole—it’s arithmetic. When government policy subsidizes dysfunction, it gets more of it.
In the name of social justice, liberal politicians have also advanced policies that keep violent predators on the streets—disproportionately harming the very communities they claim to defend. Soft-on-crime district attorneys, often elected with progressive backing, have refused to prosecute “low-level” offenses, eliminated cash bail, and released repeat offenders under the theory that incarceration is a form of systemic racism.
It is not hedge fund managers or cable news hosts who suffer the consequences of this leniency—it is working-class black Americans who live in the neighborhoods where violent crime is concentrated. When a gang member who’s already been arrested multiple times for assault or robbery is allowed back onto the street because a prosecutor wants to make a statement about mass incarceration, that’s not justice—it’s betrayal. And it sends a clear signal: the lives of law-abiding black citizens are worth less than the ideological fantasies of affluent progressives.
What’s worse, the rise in violent crime discourages business investment, reduces job opportunities, lowers property values, and drives away the very people and institutions that could improve these neighborhoods. A vicious cycle ensues, where criminality is both a symptom and a cause of despair—sustained, not by racism, but by policies rooted in naïve idealism and economic ignorance.
Progressive politics thrives on dependency. When politicians promise housing, food, healthcare, and guaranteed income—not in exchange for work, but as a permanent entitlement—they aren’t empowering individuals. They’re creating a reliable voting bloc. But dependency is not dignity. It saps ambition, undermines responsibility, and erodes the moral framework necessary for personal and communal success.
What is rarely asked in political discourse is what happens when people are treated not as capable individuals, but as wards of the state. The answer is evident in the outcomes. Public housing becomes a breeding ground for violence. Government-run schools become diploma mills for functional illiteracy. Generations grow up without any model of personal responsibility or delayed gratification. And yet, to question these outcomes is to risk being called cold, indifferent, or worse—racist.
But truth is not a popularity contest. The black community does not benefit from being coddled by paternalistic policies any more than a child benefits from parents who never say no. Real empowerment comes from opportunity, not indulgence. It comes from safety, not slogans. It comes from accountability, not excuses.
Perhaps the most toxic result of these liberal policies is the culture of excuse-making they foster. Every failure is blamed on an invisible “system.” Every act of violence is explained away by “inequity.” Every social breakdown is attributed to historic trauma. The result is a moral vacuum where no one is responsible for anything—least of all the people enacting the policies.
This narrative is not just false—it is disempowering. It tells black children that no matter how hard they work, the system is stacked against them. It tells black parents that personal choices don’t matter because society is to blame. It tells black communities that their fate is in the hands of Washington bureaucrats or Ivy League academics rather than within their own grasp.
No group has ever risen out of poverty on a diet of blame and victimhood. They rise through culture, effort, order, and capital—none of which liberal policies have promoted, and many of which they have actively undermined.
Liberal politicians have created an ecosystem where broken families are subsidized, criminals are protected, and ambition is discouraged—all in the name of equity. If these policies were applied to any other group, they would be rightly seen as condescending at best, and malicious at worst. The black community deserves better. It deserves the dignity of liberty, the structure of accountability, and the opportunity to flourish—not the false compassion of those who gain political power from perpetual grievance.
Coming soon: The Moral Superiority of Liberty by Jim Cardoza.