Will poverty make political comeback?

[Sapphire Blue]

Will poverty make political comeback?
Since the 1960s, few candidates have focused on plight of the poor
By Mike Dorning
Washington Bureau
Published June 3, 2007

WASHINGTON -- This presidential campaign may offer a test of whether poverty can make a comeback as a political issue.

For more than two years, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has persistently focused on the plight of the poor and working class, joining strikers on picket lines, campaigning for an increase in the minimum wage and, before he officially launched his presidential campaign, working part time at a poverty center he founded.

As a candidate, Edwards unabashedly speaks of poverty as "the great moral issue of our time." He has committed to a plan that he says will eliminate poverty in 30 years. The nation's response to its 37 million poor, he decreed in a speech to the National Press Club last year, "says everything about the character of America."

The top-tier Democratic presidential contenders will be asked to squarely address the issue of poverty on Monday evening. Edwards and Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will appear at a forum on moral values and poverty broadcast on CNN and sponsored by Sojourners/Call to Renewal, a liberal religious group that concentrates on social justice issues.

(snip)

Poverty once held an important place in Democratic presidential politics. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal lifted the poor and realigned the nation's politics. President Lyndon Johnson proposed the War on Poverty in his 1964 State of the Union address as he was gearing up for his re-election campaign. And Robert F. Kennedy's passionate commitment to alleviating poverty was a core theme of his 1968 presidential campaign.

(snip)

But since the 1960s, leading presidential candidates generally have not focused on the plight of the poor as a central issue, though Jesse Jackson's campaigns in 1984 and 1988 were an exception. Given popular resentment of welfare dependency, and conservative criticism that personal behavior contributed to the persistence of an underclass, most candidates found it more fruitful to concentrate on middle-class struggles.

"Sen. Edwards was very gutsy to do what he's done. Certainly he's done it against the conventional wisdom of nearly all Democratic strategists," said Robert Borosage, who was issues director for both Jackson campaigns and is co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future. "Political consultants will tell you that poor people don't vote and middle-class people, when they're feeling squeezed, aren't generous."


Continued @ http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/premium/printedition/Sunday/chi-poverty_bdjun03,1,1244211.story

***** The Presidential Forum on Faith, Values, and Poverty will air on CNN today (June 4) @ 7 pm ET/4 pm PT. *****


For more info...

Pentecost 2007: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.P07&item=pentecost07_main


A Presidential Forum on Faith, Values, and Poverty: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.P07&item=pentecost07_candidates_forum


Pentecost 2007 schedule: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.P07&item=pentecost07_schedule

[SoCalDem]

1. Probably not in the macro sense.

People can effectively shut out poverty.. Suburban life makes whole segments of the population "immune" from ever seeing poverty.

They "know" there are poor people, but even food stamps (the paper kind) are gone now, and an ATM-like card is used..in the same manner as any other atm card.

Until a whole lot more or "middle classers" are forced to downsize, lose jobs, homes, cars, health care benefits, the "issue" won't be front and center.

It's all bubbling just below the surface..

[DamnYank]

2. We can hope

We can hope the pendulum is swinging back the other way. Raygun made it politically correct and socially acceptable to dump on the poor and blame them for their own plight. As more and more of the middle class join the folks in poverty maybe people will wake up and realize that the difference between the poor and themselves is one accident or illness.

[bobbolink]

3. USians have lost the ability to empathize, to walk in another's shoes.

I'm beginning to think we need another '29 crash....

:(

[FrenchieCat]

4. Poverty is a result of various symptoms.....such as,

lack of a decent living wage, unequal education opportunities (from kindergarden to college), lack of affordable housing, inadequate health care or lack thereof, high drug prices, bankruptcy reform to the detriment of debtors, high energy cost, and job outsourcing.

I believe that many of these issues are being addressed by Democrats.....and if each was addressed adequately, much of the poverty in the United States would be alliviated.

To roll all of these issues up and label them poverty is accurate, but the cure is in addressing each and every symptom.

[jwirr]

5. I think that it will be addressed only through individual issues, such

as national health care, foods stamp reforms, housing issues, education issues and possibly the renewal issues regarding the effects of oil peak on the suburbs. Issues of world poverty are being addressed more by churches and the UN than our government. By keeping the issues separate the big issue is ignored as a complete picture.

[Czolgosz]

6. I hope so (k & r)

[DBoon]

7. The difference between now and then

In the early 1960's Michael Harrington published "The Other America", telling the story of poverty in a nation that thought of itself as prosperous. His depiction shocked the nation, and provided the support for LBJ's War on Poverty.

Then poverty was a shame, a blight on the American dream that had to be overcome by united action.

Fast forward to the Reagan years (and now). Poverty is "unhip" and poor people are getting what they deserve for being lazy and stupid.

Amazing how small we have become as a nation

[Sapphire Blue]

8. ..

:kick:

[Czolgosz]

9. k

[Tsiyu]

10. It appears America gets it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1040770

More of our leaders need to "get it."

[Sapphire Blue]

13. Thanks for the link!

:hi:

[nam78_two]

11. K&R.nt

[camero]

12. Probably not

It chique to hate the poor in this country. Even poor people hate other poor people even though they're all in the same boat. It always has surprised me to hear RW memes about welfare dependency and the glorification of the wealthy by the very people who are hurt most by the wealthy.

The middle class are just the thugs of the wealthy and they play that game with much aplomb to keep the goodies that they have.

[blues90]

14. I agree with many here .

I feel it will take either a economic crash that will effect many others who now find it easy to ignore the poverty and poor and homeless . These people are the hidden , I only see the ones sleeping on sidewalks or standing on street corners and they get passed by and ignored like they carry some disease .

I tried to get the management of the last place I worked for to hire one older man , willing to sweep floors or anything . He was clean witha warn suit , needed his nose hairs trimmed but he was willing but they would have no part of it .

[Sapphire Blue]

18. See the link in post 10.

[Richard Steele]

15. It really ought to, given how much B*sh has created.

If the struggling middle class can be made to realize
that they really are WORSE OFF than their parents were,
and that Repub policies are the boot in their face that's
been pushing them back down the US economic ladder...
how could that not be good for us?

[Oak2004]

16. The numbers say the opposite of what many of you are saying

The American *people* are very concerned about poverty (after all, many of them have seen themselves or their family members slide into it).

The American major media, and most American politicians, don't give a damn, and act like its not an issue.

[Sapphire Blue]

17. Indeed; see the link in post 10

[question everything]

19. Sadly, no

First, the poor do not vote, as was gleefully observed by the Bush administration. They are too busy holding several jobs trying to keep food and shelter for their families.

Mostly, however, most people aspire to be upwardly mobile. This is why there will never be a revolution in this country, even during the most dire conditions, when so many live in shanty towns on the lawns in D.C.

Most voters do not hate the rich; they want to be the rich. This is the "American Dream" where anyone can work hard and become rich and powerful. Or so the fairy tale goes.

This is why so many are interested in the sordid details stories of the "rich and famous."

It takes individuals with education and intelligence and, yes, time to read and to think to realize the futility and the manipulative nature of such fairy tales, at least these days. And we are too few to make a difference.

Last, as we saw with the Reagan 1984 campaign, most voters react to optimistic views of the future. I think that the successful candidate is the one who can point on areas where we need improvement and his/her commitment to do so. But a sense of positive disposition and optimism has to prevail.

This is why after Mondale, in his 1984 acceptance speech saying that he would raise taxes carried only two states. This is why always positive Bill Clinton, with his eyes to the 21st Century won over sour and dour Dole with his ties to the past.

[Sapphire Blue]

20. Please see the link in post 10!

Will you be watching the Presidential Forum on Faith Values & Poverty today on CNN?