EDITORnThomas FlemingnASSOCIATE EDITORnTheodore PappasnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSnChilton Williamson, ]r.nEDITORIAL ASSISTANTnEmily Grant AdamsnART DIRECTORnAnna Mycek-WodeckinCONTRIBUTING EDITORSnJohn W. Aldridge, Harold O.J.nBrown, Katherine Dalton, SamuelnFrancis, George Garrett, Russell Kirk,nE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonnCORRESPONDINC EDITORSnJanet Scott Barlow, Odie Faulk,nJane Greer, John Shelton ReednEDITORIAL SECRETARYnLeann DobbsnPUBUSHERnAllan G. CarlsonnPUBLICATION DIRECTORnGuyC.ReffettnCOMPOSITION MANAGERnAnita FedoranCIRCULATION MANAGERnRochelle FranknA publication of The Rockford Institute.nEditorial and Advertising Offices: 934 NorthnMain Street, Rockford, IL 61103.nEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.nAdvertising Phone: (815)964-5811.nSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800, MountnMorris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.nFor information on advertising in Chronicles,nplease call Rochelle Frank at (815) 964-5811.nU.S A Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,nSandusky, OH 44870.nCopyright © 1992 by The Rockford Institute.nAll rights reserved.nChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishednmonthly for $24 per year by The RockfordnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford, ILn61103-7061. Second-class postage paid atnRockford, IL and additional mailing offices.nPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tonChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Moms, ILn61054.nThe views expressed in Chronicles are thenauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflect thenviews of The Rockford Institute or of itsndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot benretumed unless accompanied by a self-addressednstamped envelope.nChroniclesn4/CHRONICLESnVol. 16, No. 5 May 1992nOn ‘Homelessness’nPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESnTheodore Pappas (Cultural Revolutions,nNovember 1991) says, “There is, ofncourse, no long-term answer to homelessness,”nbut this begs the question.nThe focus should not be on solving thenspecific problem of homelessness, but onnseeing homelessness as a symptom ofnmodem decay. When the change of focusntakes place, a “long-term answer tonhomelessness” will begin taking form.nTwo observations by John Lukacs willnhelp change this focus. Lukacs has pointednout that the modern age “passed”nshortly after the end of World War II,nand that our current concept of “home”nwas, directly and indirectly, one of thenmost important features of that age. So,nMr. Pappas, instead of looking at homelessnessnas an affair of bums, winos, derelicts,ndmnkards, addicts, slackers, and theninsane, take a look from a point of viewnthat sees all these as marks of a dying ornalready dead age.nYour piece itself gave several cluesnto a “long-term answer.” You referred tonDan McMurry, who has called the looseningnof the cohesiveness of the Americannfamily “the most important elementnin the explosive growth of homelessness.”nWell, one long-term answer tonhomelessness would then be to tightennup the family screws. McMurry himselfnfalls down on the de-institutionalizationnof the mentally ill. He apparentlynfailed to read Myth of Mental Illnessnby Thomas S. Szasz, who believes “mentalnillness” is no true “illness” but rathernthe result of failure to learn the rulesnof mental health. Another long-termnanswer to homelessness would thereforenbe to discover these rules and tonteach them effectively. McMurry alsonspeaks of the “steep increase in the numbernof alcoholics, especially among thenyoung.” So, here again, a long-termnanswer may be to regard alcoholism asna form of mental illness.nAre these ‘long-term answers” too difficult,nMr. Pappas? If and when we findnand put these answers into effect, theirnpurpose will not only be to put the homelessnproblem under control, but to solventhe broader educational, economic, political,nscientific, and social ones.n—Stephen MilesnTucson, KLnnnMr. Pappas Replies:nI repeat, there is no long-term “answer”nto homelessness. I admit in my editorialnthat several causes have contributed tonhomelessness, such as the de-institutionalizationnof the mentally ill in then1960’s and 70’s, and it goes without sayingnthat some homelessness would beneliminated if traditional family ties werenstrengthened and once again encouraged.nAnd if we could solve “the broaderneducational, economic, political, scientificn[?], and social” problems plaguingnour culture, surely some more homelessnessnwould diminish, as would drugnabuse, street crime, illegitimacy, and anhundred other pathologies.nBut even if we could return to thenblissful days of the 1950’s, when womennwere homemakers and fathers werenbreadwinners and the marital contractnwas something sacred, “homelessness”nwould still exist. The homeless simplynwould not be adorned with the saintednstatus they now enjoy; they would bencalled what they have always beenncalled—bums, drunkards, misfits, andnderelicts—and those in need of medicalnattention or psychological counselingnwould be either hospitalized or institutionalized.nWe can’t go back to then1950’s, but we can reclaim the right tonclean up our streets and parks.nThat millions of ordinary people—“justnlike you and me”—^are without homes andnsleeping on our streets is pure myth, a lienpropagated by special interest groupsnpursuing their own agenda. There arenfar fewer homeless than advocatesnclaim, and the medical and psychologicalnproblems of many of thenhomeless are far more severe thanncommonly admitted. Criminal activitynamong the homeless is also comingnto the fore. Late last year a 30-year-oldnman was arrested in Galveston, Texas, fornthe slaying of a female companion. Thenman was believed to be part of a trainridingngang of homeless men and womennthat is thought to be responsible fornseveral murders throughout the West.nMost interesting is the way the AssociatednPress described these individuals asn”transients,” “hobos,” and “vagrants”—nanything but “homeless.” We wouldn’tnwant, of course, to give the public the wrongnopinion.n