Arthur SIMON, Silence Can Kill: Speaking Up to End Hunger and Make Our Economy Work for Everyone. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019. Pp. xviii + 288. $29.99 pb. ISBN 978-0-8028-7747-5. Reviewed by Benjamin BROWN, Lourdes University, Sylvania, OH 43560.

Arthur Simon’s latest book on hunger and poverty updates and reminds us of the central ideas of his Bread for the World from four decades ago and a handful of other similar books since then.  He offers a vision of a deeply good America free of hunger, a vision that cuts across party lines, as the Gospel so often does.  And maybe more importantly, it is a compelling vision, which inspires, exhorts, and demands of us action to realize it in the near future.  However, he falters when it comes to some of the specific principles and steps.

Grounded in history and economics, the book assumes far more theology than it articulates, the last chapter being the notable exception.  However, it thereby provides a helpful model and counterweight for many classes and textbooks in the realm of Catholic social teaching (or Christian social teaching, more generally – Simon is a Lutheran), which tend to be theologically rich, but weak in economics, politics, and concrete practicality.

Simon’s argument proceeds in several distinct movements that nonetheless intertwine and overlap.  First, he provides hope.  The recent past is itself a testimony to the real possibility of ending almost all hunger in America and eventually the world.  When we prioritized ending poverty, we cut the poverty rate in half in just ten years from the early 60s to the early 70s (12-13).  Similarly, worldwide, chronic undernourishment has been reduced from about 50% to 11% in half a century, despite a tripling of the world’s population in the same period (28).  We have the resources and a common moral sensibility that helping the hungry is very good, so hope is well-founded.  Yet since the 70s America has made no progress, but just the opposite (12-13).  We cannot seem to muster the will, for a variety of reasons. 

These reasons are addressed in the second phase of the argument (chapters 4-7).  The first problem is our silence, often driven by the despair that we can’t effect political change.  But Simon provides several significant examples of how deep concern coupled with persistent political advocacy led to substantial improvement.  A second problem is the idea that private charitable work is the best way to tackle hunger.  However, while private charity is essential and good, it currently feeds only an eighth of the people fed by public assistance.  Simon argues that we absolutely must address this at a public, political level, in part because we need to address hunger communally, not merely individually.

However, in his third step, Simon explains how food assistance, even extensively at the public level, is woefully inadequate, because it does not address the broader issues that contribute to poverty nor provide a sufficient long-term solution.  For that, we must address social inequalities, unemployment, wages, and family instability.

Finally, Simon argues that coming together around the issue of hunger can be an excellent way to overcome many of our other problems.  It would reground us morally, which would help us begin to address other issues, for if we cannot help malnourished children, how can we have the moral vision or will to address other more complex or less visible injustices.  It could help overcome political polarization.  And it provides an integral approach with charity, free enterprise, government, families, and local communities all working together, which is a template for solving other issues.  This positive vision is also a call to action and a powerful way to conclude the book.

Simon leans progressive, so it was delightful to see that he nonetheless recognized several important elements that are often ignored by liberals.  He sees that the ultimate solution lies in adequate employment much more than handouts, which needs both robust free enterprise and clear government direction to be realized.  He also frankly addresses the abundantly clear data that family instability is intertwined with poverty and suggests that a robust “campaign for cohesive families” is needed at the civic level.

However, the book is not without its shortcomings.  Simon seems to think that poverty is much more a cause than an effect of family instability.  He focuses on undifferentiated social inequality as a cause of problems (rather than also a result) and returns repeatedly to government-provided solutions with a focus on handouts (TANF).  He provides little discussion of the importance of personal virtue, supported by religious conversion.  And while he cites many studies, he often does not sufficiently unpack the data for it to be clear, coherent, and supportive of his argument.

Despite these critiques, Simon has provided a more balanced and extensive treatment of the problem of hunger than most other such texts.  He presents a compelling vision for a more just and caring world that is strongly communal and sees government as a good and essential embodiment of common action.  Throughout the book and particularly in the penultimate chapter, he offers a wide range of helpful, practical suggestions.  This text is a welcome addition to the social justice literature, which anyone teaching or working in that field should read.