As far as substance goes, I totally agree with and support Sen. Edwards speeches and policies with regard to poverty. The problem is, from a political standpoint I think it’s a loser. Edwards has clearly made discussing poverty a centerpiece of his campaign, and it was what he was working on inbetween the last election and when he declared his candidacy. But as a motivator to capture someone’s vote, it’s a clunker.
Why? Because most people who are in poverty either don’t think of themselves as impoverished or prefer more aspirational approaches to getting out of poverty. Most people who are poor statistically when asked will likely not say that they’re poor. In fact, they’re probably likely to say that they’re “middle class”. It’s the same way as if you ask people that are by many standards wealthy, they’re also likely to describe themselves as “middle class”. I think it’s kind of an American thing to want to be part of the middle class, because we have one in this country while other nations you’re either really rich or really poor. Since about the post-WWII boom we’ve had this inbetween state that the bulk of us belong too, and no matter the reality of your fiscal situation, you still probably identify with this group (This is also why I cringe when I hear Democrats and progressives drone on about “working people”. It just sounds like elitists talking down to people when you say that.)
The other reason why I think it doesn’t work is because Sen. Edwards’ rhetoric too readily accepts the idea of poverty. He discusses how to raise people out of poverty with concrete policy, but I don’t think people want to hear that. Many liberals pooh-pooh this, but the vast majority of Americans still believe in the Horatio Alger story, and while it is clearly much harder to make that happen nowadays thanks to the concentration of wealth and the conservative racket designed to protect that concentration, you will still sell people better on your policies when you make it clear that they’ll be “moving on up”.
The discussion of poverty, class, and the great American dream of upward mobility is one where a realistic discussion is a clunker. Americans don’t want to be told that to be poor is to be noble, poor folks do not see it that way. It may seem crass, but more abstract dialogue about increasing wealth and ownership would be much more successful.
Related
What Can You Do For Your Country?
One America
John Edwards & Economic Populism
So what you’re saying is: Nobody cares about the poor–not even the poor themselves.
Yep. Iraq’s the biggest concern, then the economy. Health care is up there as well, but none of the other issues will really win you votes.
Certainly doing something about poverty is a good idea, but not a vote-winning one.
Yes mi fren, most Americans still believe in the Horatio Alger story, and it behooves the MSM and the elites to continue to push that story. It continues to create a false consciousness, a concentration on “making it”, creates a blissfully unaware public of what is happening or being done in their name internationally, and creates a situation where people actually vote for policies that are not in their own interest.
Yes mi fren, most Americans still believe in the Horatio Alger story, and it behooves the MSM and the elites to continue to push that story. It continues to create a false consciousness, a concentration on “making it”, creates a blissfully unaware public of what is happening or being done in their name internationally, and creates a situation where people actually vote for policies that are not in their own interest.
I agree with you up to this line:
I think it’s kind of an American thing to want to be part of the middle class, because we have one in this country while other nations you’re either really rich or really poor.
Which is nonsense. According to almost every poll, more Americans think they are in the “top tax bracket” than actually are. In other words most Americans think they are rich when statistically they are not.
Furthermore, isn’t the largest problem with America’s economy that we have the LARGEST disparity of wealth among all industrialized nations? Among first-world nations and factoring access to education, health care, and overall wellness, we have the richest rich people and the poorest poor people.
The only reason you could suggest European and developed Asian nations don’t have a “middle class” is because there is so less a threshold between rich and non-rich.
We’re the only country that considers health care and higher education luxury commodities. We have a middle class in America because not being fantastically wealthy but still having access to all basic amenities in life isn’t a “class” in the rest of the developed world; it’s the status quo.
I take a more pessimistic view. I think poverty doesn’t resonate because too many ‘middle class’ people (i.e., not poor) are living paycheck to paycheck. In that environment, people don’t want to hear about the poor, they want to hear about policies that will help them.
That’s why I think universal healthcare has so much traction.
“Household incomes dropped 5.4% ”
is a headline today in the Baltimore Sun but you make a good point,the poor and middle class have drunk the Kool-aid of the American dream without realizing Elvis left the building….and moved to China.
Oliver, maybe you don’t realize how many unintentionally funny (or ironic) things you wrote:
“the conservative racket designed to protect that concentration”
Mmmmkay … so FDR was a conservative? I mean, he set the top marginal tax rate at 94% and congressional Democrats kept it above 90% after the war; JFK finally cut it to 77%.
The most effective means of keeping people from acquiring wealth is to tax it away from them. That seems to be a solidly Democrat racket. I believe the sales pitch is, pay your “fair share.” Only Democrats seem to know what that is.
“I think it’s kind of an American thing to want to be part of the middle class, because we have one in this country while other nations you’re either really rich or really poor.”
SSSSSSSHHHHH! Don’t EVER let Mr. Two Americas hear you speak such heresy again!
“more abstract dialogue about increasing wealth and ownership”
NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!! St. Hillary has already dismissed the idea of the “ownership society.” Commie Dearest wants America to be a “we’re all in this together society.”
Sorry Oliver, but your party’s position on these issues has been laid out plainly enough to effectively neuter any attempt to redefine it.
You want to know what John Edwards’ real problem is? He is a personal injury trial lawyer who made millions off medical lawsuits whose basis has since been proven false. He sheltered his millions in an S corporation, thus avoiding paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. Not illegal, mind you, but it makes Edwards into a major hypocrite who has no problem weaseling out of paying his “fair share.” And how many ther people can you name who worked for a very exclusive money management firm, took nearly half a million dollars in consulting fees, and then claimed that they were doing it just so they could study poverty?
John Edwards’ true problem is that he is too obsessed with lining his own pockets to be taken seriously as an advocate for the poor.
Since Joseph Kennedy pulled all the crooked stunts (insider trading, gin running, etc.) that built the Kennedy family fortune, Bobby Kennedy could at least portray himself as the son of a wealthy patriarch who had washed his hands of his father’s misdeeds and truly felt compassion for the less fortunate. John Edwards can’t do that.
wow, somebody pulled out the vintage “hater-ade” they’d been saving for a special occasion. FDR? the Kennedys?
Nobody ever actually paid those top marginal rates, primarily because of all the loopholes available to the wealthy. Many of those loopholes, such as deductions for charitable contributions, were designed to benefit not only the person taking them, but also the larger society.
I’m trying to see what point you’re trying to make about Edwards’ focus on poverty, Mike, but all I see are ad hominem arguments.
There’s probably a way to connect fighting poverty and the ownership society concept(affordable housing programs and college scholarships, e.g.).
I make $30,000 a year and I’ll be damned if Hitlery and the Dumbocrats are going to take money away from my betters. Kennedy, Clinton!!!11!!1@111
Mike in DC, deductions for charitable contributions is not a loophole in the law as it was the lawmakers intention to provide it to people. A loophole is something that is perfectly legal, but certainly not something lawmakers had the intention of creating.
In today’s blend of news/entertainment, the issue that John Edwards has with his poverty message is himself. Yes, he wasn’t born into money like Bush or Kennedy, but he is very very wealthy.
Like it or not, he got wealthy being part of a profession that society doesn’t look favorably upon: trial lawyers. Granted, most people disdain lawyers until they need one, but that still is the overall perception.
He’s handsome, educated, wears expensive suits and has that smooth southern accent. People know about that haircut and they know about that mansion he’s having built. So there are a lot of people who are thinking: “What the hell does this guy know about poverty?”
Now before anybody gets crazy, I’m not criticizing Edwards but rather Americans part of a lazy society who think that way.
This isn’t to say that I agree with Edwards as I don’t. He’s operating from the myth that only the government can rescue people from poverty, but it’s not say that people wouldn’t accept Edwards message. He’s just not the right messenger.
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of the progressive argument, which more accurately would be that government can do more to alleviate poverty, and do so more effectively than it has done, and that alleviating poverty through providing a “hand up, not a hand out” not only benefits the poor, but the economy in general(since you add millions of new middle class consumers to the market).
I have little doubt that any major candidate speaking about poverty would be mocked as a “hypocrite” because of their wealth(never mind that most presidential candidates are well to do, both as a consequence of their success and as a necessity for being a “serious” contender).
CEOs aren’t really liked much more than trial lawyers these days, either.
“He’s operating from the myth that only the government can rescue people from poverty …”
Yeah, because he proposes that the government just give people money to buy rolls royces. What a stupid thing to say, Jay.
Are you suggesting that government has no role to play in helping people escape poverty? Because Edwards has never suggested that government is the ONLY way to do it.
Edward’s life story actually plays against him. He was “the son of a mill worker”, after all. By pulling himself out of poverty through hard work and education, he shows those in poverty that they don’t need the government handouts he’s selling.
See, I’ve always been a guy who votes for candidates who talk about issues that are important instead of issues they think can win elections. I think Gore’s triangulation in ‘00 was his biggest mistake. (Well, “triangulation” encompasses several DOZEN big mistakes he made, in fact — backing off environmentalism, running with Joe Lieberman, limiting Clinton’s role in his campaign, and on and on.)
Now seems like as good a time as any to explore economic disparity. This is the first post-Katrina Presidential election, we’ve got Paris Hilton to point at every single time anyone tries to break out Horatio Alger and tell us that rich people get rich through honesty and hard work, and while obviously Michael Moore movies don’t win elections, Sicko’s done a pretty good job of at least getting people talking about disparities in healthcare (and even focuses on the rich vs. the middle class rather than the rich vs. the poor).
Yeah, because he proposes that the government just give people money to buy rolls royces. What a stupid thing to say, Jay.
Yes Frame, that was a stupid thing for you to say. Thanks for pointing that out.
Are you suggesting that government has no role to play in helping people escape poverty? Because Edwards has never suggested that government is the ONLY way to do it.
Really? Then perhaps you can share with the rest of us the policies advocated by liberals to alleviate poverty that operate outside of the federal government.
I looked at Edwards site and aside from his ideas on cutting (some) taxes, I don’t see anything he proposes that would fall outside the scope of the government.
“Really? Then perhaps you can share with the rest of us the policies advocated by liberals to alleviate poverty that operate outside of the federal government.
I looked at Edwards site and aside from his ideas on cutting (some) taxes, I don’t see anything he proposes that would fall outside the scope of the government. ”
Uh, you do understand that Edwards is running for president right? In turn wouldn’t you expect that he would be giving his ideas on, now follow me here…running the GOVERNMENT?
Here’s your sign.
Jay: “Yes Frame, that was a stupid thing for you to say. Thanks for pointing that out.”
No, YOU are in third grade!!!
Uh, you do understand that Edwards is running for president right? In turn wouldn’t you expect that he would be giving his ideas on, now follow me here…running the GOVERNMENT?
Uh, you do realize that Edwards said his goal is to eliminate poverty by 2036 right?
Jesse Jackson framed things better: “people who work hard every day,” “people who catch the early bus,” “people who empty bedpans” rather than just “poor people.”
We can see ourselves or at least people we come in contact with in those phrases, not just the Other.
“Then perhaps you can share with the rest of us the policies advocated by liberals to alleviate poverty that operate outside of the federal government.”
Suggesting that the government is the ONLY way to alleviate poverty and suggesting that the government has a role to play in alleviating poverty are two totally different things.
Edwards policies recognize the constructive role that government can play in alleviating poverty including worker re-training, strengthening labor laws, raising the minimum, helping rural areas develop new industries etc. etc.
What else would you like to see as a central part of his platform? Asking corporations as nicely as possible that they provide child care for low wage employees? Asking CEOs to set aside some of their stock earnings to provide more worker re-training funds for those employees they layoff after every merger, pretty please?
It’s clear that Edwards position on poverty is that the government should be rewarding the hard work of individuals who, despite being gainfully employed or trying to find work, find themselves trapped beneath the poverty level.
The government has a role to play in alleviating poverty. If you believe it has NO role to play, just come out and say it. Then tell me that candidates for office should build their platforms entirely around suggesting that companies and people do things because, well, it would be nice if they did.
What an idiot.
“Uh, you do realize that Edwards said his goal is to eliminate poverty by 2036 right?”
And he could accomplish this challenging goal by NOT mobilizing the power of the government? You think?
“By pulling himself out of poverty through hard work and education, he shows those in poverty that they don’t need the government handouts he’s selling.”
So Edwards is the wrong person to advocate for the poor because he himself was able to escape poverty? Brilliant, Save.
And how, exactly, do you know Edwards didn’t receive assistance from the government in some form along the way, if only through guaranteed student loans? Just asking, Save, how much you actually know about Edwards personal story and how much of your opinion is based on right wing horseshit.
Yes, John Edwards got his Bachelors at NC State and his JD at North Carolina. No, no government assistance there.
I’ll tell you why I like Edwards. All the other candidates drone on and on about helping the “middle class” because they know everyone identifies as middle class, even the horrendously poor. It’s pandering, and it obscures the real class divisions in America. Edwards is telling it like it really is. Not to mention it encapsulates so many other issues, Iraq (over-representation of the poor in the frontline military), universal healthcare, tax cuts for the weathly, etc.
On a side note, the only word that politicians overuse that annoys me more than “middle-class” is “partisanship,” which is why every time Joe Lieberman opens his mouth I want to plunge an ice pick into my ear holes.
How dare Edwards make an issue of poverty?(does anyone think Obama would have made his excellent speech last week without the Edwards push?)After all urban and rural poverty cannot be changed…so why go there…
Poverty?….nothing to see here…move along..
I have respected your views and your blog…which is why I visit…
So tell me
So tell us..if not Edwards on poverty…..Whom?
Here is a link from a post at the Edwards blog that I feel touches on what is going down..
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/7/20/175014/251