Whatever else comes of it, it has forced some much needed discussion.
Barack Obama was right to say Wednesday that his early community organizing work shows that poverty "is not an issue I just discovered for the purposes of a campaign." For that matter, Hillary Clinton began her professional life laboring to eradicate child poverty.
The difference is that by harping on the issue, Edwards -- whatever his motivations -- has forced Democrats to abandon their fear of being seen as too focused on the needs of the poor and has thus opened political space for his rivals.
That was E.J. Dionne.
I've been thinking in terms of narratives and messages sent recently. Dionne sees Democrats as wimps, actually. Either recovering from or relapsing into fear of their opponents in the Rhetoric Wars.
Oliver says thinking about poverty messes with people's self image.
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"....
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.
I don't think he means “people who are poor statistically”. The poverty level is like tossing salads; if you're at it, you know you're poor. Probably homeless too. But I get his point; it's true that people who ought to be supportive of strengthening the social safety net out of sheer self interest often do not because they just don't see it as relevant to them now. It's also true they favor benefits for the social class they expect themselves to be in rather than the one they are in now.
And it's just possible that last point is why folks want to make sure he doesn't get too far ahead on the topic, or just take shots at him (I don't think it unfair to link The American Prospect's examination of Edwards to “take shots at him.” Then again, my issues with The American Prospect go back a couple of years). See, Edwards is a Southern boy. I think he's seen something subtle.
The immigration bill debacle drove home to me the high level of economic insecurity in Red America. Ignore the hate radio noise and you hear it clearly. And who is talking about that insecurity in a non-finger pointing way? It's just possible Edwards has the only campaign that can get votes from Southern white men. Though they'd call the “One America” slogan kinda gay. It still needs tuning.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
As someone taken with the
As someone taken with the issues that Edwards is raising, do you see anything in his past which convinces you that he would carry through on his campaign promises? Realistically, how would an Edwards presidency confront the issue of economic inequality?
I'll be honest. I'm not
I'll be honest. I'm not sure. I wasn't even supposed to be doing this yet. This is all thinking out loud.
But if he promises it to Southern White Men, I suspect he'd find it harder to shake loose...and with current connectivity, it will be harder to cut Black folks out on a whim.
I'll also tell you this. I
I'll also tell you this. I met one of the EPI's associate communication directors at TBA2007. She's going to connect me to Jared Bernstein next week (I didn't collect business cards for nothing). He's already written favorably of Edwards' program but there was no competition then.
Ome more thing....
I now think an Obama/Edwards one two punch would be perfect. Obama's platform focuses more on urban poverty, where Edwards focuses more on rural poverty. Edwards can speak to the south and the non-urban north...Obama can speak to the urban North.
UBSTU34, I understand this
UBSTU34, I understand this question, but I'm not sure whether this question gets at what you're interested in. Poverty, because it is now associated with black people, has been taboo as a political issue for the last thirty years. Edwards isn't doing this to get votes or to pander...which seems to be the implication here. If he were generating campaign promises just to get in, there are a whole lot of promises that would have generated more political support. A lot of people are skeptical of his moves here, because he's paid, and because he rubs people the wrong way. But I think it much more important to ask two questions:
1. Who talked about poverty before he did?
2. What are his policies and how helpful are they?
I've looked at his platform, and until yesterday (when I realized that Obama--IN RESPONSE TO EDWARDS--was beginning to deal with this issue) thought that it was head and shoulders above his opponents (who were silent on the issue--Clinton is still silent I think). Now having read his and Obama's I can say that they are both very very doable, and could significantly improve the lives of working class and poor people. Don't fall victim to the personality hype.
kspence..... I appreciate
kspence..... I appreciate the feedback on this issue. I don't think for a minute that Edwards is simply pandering in order to get votes. I think his sense of urgency on this issue is genuine. As to your questions, few political leaders made poverty a central issue to the extent that Edward has both in this campaign and, to some extent, during his run in 2004. Clinton certainly didn't to any substantial degree. I am not sure how Jackson's positions in 84' and 88' compare to Edwards. (I will have to do some research.) As to the second question, I am still trying to ascertain specifically what his policies are, how they compare to a variety of proposed solutions to poverty, and how they will play out if implemented. (I can't answer this question as clearly.) I am also curious to learn if there is anything in his past which suggests that he will be able to deliver on some of his promises and whether his history as a southern white male will cause him to back-step in addressing and attacking the relationship between racism and poverty.
I would be happy with a Obama/Edwards ticket because it would signal that the Democratic party is not merely interested in business as usual which would be the case if we see another Clinton coronation.
racism and poverty
here you bring up an excellent issue. housing segregation is the reason why black people live under conditions of concentrated poverty in cities, and this process generates the material conditions that lead to black women being associated with welfare and black men with violent crime.
there is nothing in edwards' platform that deals with this. nothing in obama's.
if there is a third rail in american politics it isn't just "race." it's housing segregation. i believe that the political conditions are ripe enough that if obama or edwards wins, they'll get the congressional power to deal with poverty. in fact, given the way bush has been able to roll over congress with his idea of the imperial presidency, if that idea still has force by the time a democrat gets in power there may be even more room to maneuver. but these guys won't be able to deal with housing segregation. which pretty much makes race nothing more than a symbolic issue for them.