The usual Democratic proposals for homelessness policy involve “compassionate” ways to alleviate their immediate suffering by providing housing without need, zones for tent cities, or promises to reform the system that drives people into homelessness.

The problem is that these solutions don’t help the homeless become self-sufficient. Free housing gives drug use ease and privacy, tent living mocks human living conditions and blames the state for ignoring the reality of the homeless person’s life and choices. When a prolonged non-offensiveness is confused with compassion, this kind of tension arises.

The city of Berkeley, California, is the most prominent among progressive cities with changed viewpoints to homelessness. While the city has tolerated and, spurred on by activists, even supported the overabundance of places like public parks with tent pop-ups, Berkeley is now limiting and removing homeless encampments. Add it Phoenix, Denver, Washington, DC, and San Francisco.

It is a change towards common sense that has become more and more acceptable since Trump won the presidency in November. Even so, the solution is not as straightforward as cracking down on the homeless and shaking them into reform.

Public safety and increased homelessness brought the problem to a new dimension, and it is real concern. But as protesters rage against the efforts of cities (some in Berkeley even destroyed construction equipment) they overlook the deeper solution that policies such as restrictions on camps provide.

In the bubble of a homeless-driven and otherwise avoided zone, those living in the camp will have little contact with others, be they role models or loved ones. People need other people to recognize their own humanity, and it is this recognition that ultimately motivates them to want more for themselves. In this case, “more” is the simple pursuit of help or a house.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Some homeless organisations, such as Christ in the city in Denver, aim for this very mission to provide the homeless with some compassion and friendship. And while they don’t measure their work in numbers, the reality is that such service is rare—certainly countered by the progressive ideal that more ignores the homeless. In addition, research has shown the benefits of “cross-class exposure” to financial success. Again, people need to meet others, and more often than not will build relationships with people who model good choices or who have more opportunities to push a person who is otherwise doomed by their poverty.

Until the left can learn coexist With different ideas, these important relational efforts may not flourish as they should. And so all they have is seemingly inadequate and harsh policies.