Toys for #$@!*$! Tots

Could we bring some clarity to charity?

by Patrick J. Shanahan
12/16/04

Ahhhh…the Christmas season. I am nothing if not a romantic sucker for Christmastime. The sights, the sounds, the smells, the lights, the songs. Even round bearded gentlemen with jelly-like bellies (we need to stick together, you know).

Lest there be any doubt, let me be perfectly clear: I like Marines. I like Christmas. I like toys. I like children (although the phrase “Tots” inexplicably annoys me). I like charity. But I simply cannot stand the annual Toys for Tots lovefest.

Some folks will no doubt say “there he goes again. It’s Christmas time, so he has to grinch on about some darn thing or other.” And it is true that I believe Ebenezer Scrooge has an undeservedly harsh reputation. But I am not a grinch. I am much more of a Santa Claus type. So why my disgust with Toys for Tots?

I think it is because, if I may draw a rough analogy that will serve to aggravate the red/blue culture gap, Toys for Tots represents the essence of “Blue Christmas” (Elvis was apparently ahead of his time). Red Christmas does not rely for survival on “niceness.” It depends for its survival, oddly enough, on Christ. Midnight Mass is a much better core symbol for red state Christmas. Sure we red-staters load up on tacky lights, and listen to Christmas carols. (Even, shock, non-religious ones!) We shop, and buy presents, and decorate trees, and give of time and money to charity. But at the heart of the entire “holiday” enterprise is the fact that it exists to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. That’s it. No Jesus, no Christmas.

It is entirely consistent with Red Christmas to share the joy and happiness with our neighbors, and to give to those worthy neighbors who are less fortunate. But that is not, and cannot be on its own terms, the point of the season.

Ever since Dickens penned his story, a certain strain of secular-leaning western culture - that which we have come to recognize as Blue State culture - has sought to replace the holy core of Christmas with a sense of generic niceness. Now, niceness is certainly inherent in Christmas, but if it ain’t niceness with a backbone it doesn’t count. Like the sort of gooey, limp niceness that turns Christmas into “Holiday” in order, ironically, to hide its singular holiness, also seeks to make cheap suburban charity like Toys for Tots the core of the season. I do not want to imply that only Blue Staters enjoy giving to Toys for Tots. It actually frightens me how enthusiastic we all seem to be. But it clearly fits much better with the Blue State worldview. This means it will draw semi-official Blue State cultural cover, making it one of the few Christmas-related charities to receive the official liberal stamp of approval.

Most people fall for the Toys for Tots line because it seems so straightforward and lovely. Helping poor kids get a slice of joy this Christmas, who could object? Images of Tiny Tim are brought to mind, of malnourished children lying on threadbare rugs in dark, cold apartments, sobbing because Santa has passed them by. But, fair middle class matron, if you just drop a new (!) unwrapped toy in this box, that cruel vision will disappear. Little Timmy will have his video game. Christmas will not have to be canceled this year!

I find this objectionable on several levels. I have already described its use as a tactic to mask the holy in Christmas. But it is also another example of outdated thinking about what charity is and should be. This is Depression-era, widows and orphans stuff. This is a relic of an age when there were truly destitute families for whom buying a toy was almost impossible. Today, this makes no sense. We have so many layers of social safety net in place that it is almost impossible to imagine a home where Mom and Dad can’t squeeze out the five bucks for a decent toy. I would love to see a survey on the material possessions of Toys for Tots recipients. How many have more than one television set? How many own a DVD player? How many own multiple cars? I suspect there are two brands of recipients. The first are the truly needy through all fault of their own - parents who have drunk, smoked, injected or gambled away their money. This presents us with a classic “moral hazard”, in which by the very act of seeking to save children from their own parent’s irresponsibility, we end up enabling that irresponsibility. The second sort are people with few scruples, who willingly take “charity” for their children so that they can more effectively spend what money they have on themselves. Say, on a new iPod.

I suspect that the “charity” in Toys for Tots is charity for the givers only. It allows them to feel as if they are doing good. With the marines playing Middleman, it is easier than ever to pretend we are doing something. In an age in which government (to our detriment) meets most true “charitable” needs, we are nonetheless impelled to do something to make ourselves feel that we really care. Paying taxes does nothing to meet the emotional need that most of us (especially women) require to feel like we are making a difference, like we are helping. And so we throw the toys into the big cardboard boxes. And walk away with a smug smile on our face, thinking that we have done good, and knowing that we are aligned with the generic nice Holiday zeitgeist.

I stand with my hero Charlie Brown in decrying the commercialization of Christmas. But I think Toys for Tots is as much a part of the problem as is WalMart.