I know Paul Benchener; Paul Benchener is a friend of mine; and you … Well, I can’t complete that sentence with the same destructive power Lloyd Bentsen used to skewer Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate (“I knew John Kennedy; John Kennedy was a friend of mine; and you’re no John Kennedy”). I can’t do that because you, Matt Benchener, are Paul Benchener, in every positive way I can conceive. You may not have pulled yourself up “by your bootstraps,” as your father did, but I know you worked as hard as he did, and I fully expect you to achieve great things in your life, as has he. Having said all that gooey, sentimental stuff, I have to take issue with the conclusion you drew from a microscopic examination of your father’s admirable life.

I think a son could just as easily have decided to become a liberal based on his examination of Paul Benchener’s life. That would necessitate the son recognizing, as I’m sure you already do, Matt, that Paul Benchener is an extraordinary individual, intelligent, motivated, honest, diligent, loyal — a combination of human qualities not many of his peers, well- or poorly born, possess. Your conclusion that our government shouldn’t have to offer individuals “a hand up,” as I understand you, because Paul Benchener proves by his example that anyone can make it without government assistance, emerges from what I would call extremely shaky reasoning; indeed, the facts themselves contradict your conclusion. It seems more logical to note that since there are so few individuals like Paul, many of them (most?) probably need some assistance even to begin to have a chance to live the kind of life Paul has lived.

Matt, you write, “In large part, my dad believed, success was a direct outcome of the work you put in. He is living proof that it doesn’t matter where you start, only where you choose to end up. And that is the beautiful thing about our country.” No real, red-blooded American citizen could disagree with that sentiment. I think it would be fair, however, to point out the flaw in your phrase, “…where you choose to end up.” No one “chooses” to end up on the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder; it is a terribly insulting suggestion — aimed, it seems to me, at millions of our fellow citizens who, in spite of laboring hard all of their lives, remain at or below the poverty line — that these folks ended up where they are because they were not willing to work hard enough to achieve greatness. The hard-edged judgment that such an individual could have become anything he or she wanted to become is patently, even cruelly, unfair, and it is untrue.

You also write, “The American Dream is that anyone can become almost anything through hard work and personal industry.” That is, I agree, one vital, living aspect of the American Dream. It is necessary to remember that it is, after all, a dream, one that is far-too-rarely realized. Paul Benchener realized that aspect of his dream. We should congratulate and applaud him for the uniqueness of his achievement, but clearly we should not use his life example to justify adopting a society-wide decision to deny assistance to those who do not have his peculiar set of human qualities.

So, what should we do? I support your implied suggestion that organizations outside of the government should be the agencies of assistance in our free society; it would be an ideal circumstance that we would be, through private contributions, our brothers’ keepers. And there are undoubtedly thousands of organizations that do provide such assistance. If, in short, we were a truly charitable people, there would be much less need for government welfare programs. The current sad fact of the matter is, we are not, as a whole, charitable toward our fellow citizens — or, at least, we are not charitable enough. Indeed, the tendency has been that the wealthier an American becomes, the less he or she is likely to give to those in need. Whether through government aid or the assistance of NGOs, we Americans have a moral obligation to give folks a hand up. Today, the only way all of our brothers and sisters are going to receive that assistance is through government programs.

Finally, you write, “Conservatism places great faith in man; liberalism places great faith in government.” What “men” should we have faith in, Matt? The bankers? Wall Street wheelers and dealers? Corporate executives? I’m sure those aren’t the “men” you had in mind. Name me five influential private citizens in the history of this country who could match this list of government employees: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Colin Powell.

I believe liberalism is the social construct that most consistently and clearly emphasizes the value of the individual. Liberalism is based on the belief that we as a society should not leave a single individual behind; conservatism suggests that the weak should fall, unaided.

The Declaration of Independence does feature the words you included in your essay: “…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…” I would agree with you, Matt, that these sentiments are central to our American-ness. The next half of the phrase is, I believe, equally valuable: “…that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Governments ensure individual rights, including, presumably, the aforementioned, “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Does that not imply that we all share the responsibility — through our government — for the welfare of our fellow Americans?

Have you ever considered sending a copy of this to the current administration and to each member of the congress?

Thanks for writing this.