DMI Blog

Mark Winston Griffith

You, Me and Poverty:The Not-So-Great Society

Yesterday's reporting in the New York Times that John Edwards is "broadening" his campaign theme to go beyond talking about poverty strikes an ominous tone for those of us who were encouraged by Edwards' "Poverty Tour" in the first place. In a country that largely regards Lyndon Johnson's so-called war on poverty and the Great Society as failures, Edwards' decision to make economic inequality the central message of his campaign seemed somewhat bold. While his decision to make a point of saying that "everybody is at risk" and not call exclusive attention to the plight of poor people, was perhaps strategically wise, it ultimately signals how little appetite Americans have for the P word.

It also suggests that that we are not ready to make substantive social change to close the wages and wealth gaps, but simply trim around the edges. In Bloomberg's case, "fighting poverty" means, giving a low-income family $50 as a reward for good school attendance through his conditional cash transfer program.

Let's not forget that Edwards is already running a distant third behind Clinton and Obama. His poverty talk may not have shown up at all had he been a front-runner. In fact, by virtue of being Black, Obama has the "I speak for the disenfranchised" already subliminally attached to his political person.

It's no accident that progressive institutions, including DMI, speak more about saving and expanding the middle class rather than make more explicit identifications with the poor. The fact of the matter is that people who meet the technical definition of being poor include working people who don't think of themselves in those terms. What does resonate with the public is not so much that people are falling behind in the race for the American Dream, but that it's rigged by the people who are winning it. In this context there are no poor people, just the freakishly wealthy and the rest of us schmucks trying to score some health care.

That's fine. As long as we recognize that there is a difference between those of us who have little and those of us who don't have squat. And the economic initiatives that will change this will be dramatic, structural and span generations.

Posted at 7:32 AM, Jul 20, 2007 in Economic Opportunity | Permalink | Comments (4)


Comments

Mark, I think I see where you're heading, but I'm not sure you ever get there. Is your blog an indictment on the rich, on John Edwards' inability to reach the people or on the general failing of America to properly serve its constituents.

I think you have about three blogs in one, here. I only wish you had developed one of these important issues more thoroughly.

Posted by: Bell Work Online Staff | July 20, 2007 10:49 AM

The point is well taken. Perhaps my entry was bigger on ambition than delivery. The intended take away from the blog is that the left is desperately searching for ways to "sell" the fact that there is deep-seated economic inequality in this country. The question is, in making the argument more accessible and politically palatable to middle america are we soft selling the problem and/or diluting the potency of the potential solutions that are needed?

Posted by: Mark Winston Griffith | July 20, 2007 11:41 AM

Everytime I hear Edwards speak of poverty, it makes me think about him riding around in his limo with his $400 hair-cut and telling the poor and elderly to buy his insurance [humana]. THIS IS A REAL PHONY, BELIEVE ME!

Posted by: Old Geecer | July 22, 2007 04:32 PM

Um, so is the commenter above saying that the rich shouldn't try to help the poor? Quick! Somebody tell FDR and JFK! Apparently we only want the rich to advocate for themselves?!?!

Posted by: Elana | July 22, 2007 09:22 PM