- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- Sarah Palin
- |
- Karl Rove
- |
- GOP
- |
"Poverty Off the Political Radar": Is it True?
Read More:
Christina Bellatoni, John Edwards, Melody Barnes, Obama Transition, Political Agenda, Political Radar, Poverty, President Obama, Spotlight On Poverty And Opportunity, Washington Times,
Politics News
This morning's Washington Times published an article by Christina Bellatoni entitled, Poverty off Political Radar, in which she argues that the issue of poverty has lost ground on the national agenda as a result of Edward's highly-publicized affair. Although the article focuses on Edwards himself and calls for his inclusion in the Obama cabinet, along the way, it misrepresents the role played by the issue of poverty in Obama's campaign.
For example, it states:
But some lament that when he [Edwards] disappeared, so did the issues he championed, despite early promises from Mr. Obama to embark on a poverty tour and push the issue on the campaign trail. 'The word 'poverty' has not been used since John Edwards dropped out,' said Jonathan Tasini, executive director of the Labor Research Association. Mr. Obama emphasized the state of the economy during his campaign and promised to help the middle class, but he never specifically pushed the issue of poverty.
In reality, Obama did push poverty as an issue during the campaign, mentioning poverty in nearly a quarter of his speeches. My analysis indicates that these mentions did peak up toward the end of Edward's push for the nomination and then again during Edward's nation-wide poverty tour last summer. And so I agree that Edwards helped push the issue of poverty on the agenda (and for that reason I sympathize with calls for his inclusion in the cabinet). Yet, it is also clear that Obama (and Clinton) continued to carry water on this issue throughout the campaign.
But beyond its mischaracterization of Obama's campaign, this article raised a more central issue for poverty advocates: how do we know when poverty is on or off the political radar screen? This is a question I have been grappling with after writing about the absence of poverty as an issue in Obama's speeches during this transition period. In response to a Huffington Post, Obama: 1 (month), Poverty: 0 (mentions), I received comments from many readers arguing that counting mentions of poverty (or any issue) was not a good way to assess a candidate's agenda.
For example, one HuffPost commenter, Natalie4Obama, stated, "I think Obama supporters love him because of what he actually gets done rather than what he talks about.... I don't care how many times he mentions poverty...The number of times a politician mentions something has no bearing on how much he cares about it or how much he is going to get done when he is the president, which he isn't.
Other commentators used other metrics to assess Obama's attention to poverty. A commenter, Overlander, wrote: "No, he didn't "talk" about poverty, but he did hand out food to the needy on Thanksgiving Eve." And another, Chiazz, argued: "What is the gain jabbering about poor people when he's been carving out plans to create jobs that will benefit the poor?"
And reporting on the inside-baseball politics of poverty, the OOTS blog on the website of Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, posts a stream of optimistic (to the point of ecstatic) reports on the number of Obama appointees bringing strong commitments, knowledge, and experience moving forward an anti-poverty agenda.
I don't disagree. I am encouraged by Obama's campaign themes, appointments, and proposals to strengthen our economy and middle-class. Yet, I still want him to talk about the issue of poverty and the plight of those with the very least. I am not seeking a statement of concern or care. Instead, I am looking for evidence that the Obama administration will be on the offensive, rather than the defensive, on the issue of poverty. We know that the regular business-as-usual process of governing tends to systematically overlook those who speak the softest in favor those who speak the loudest. For this reason, I worry - despite my faith in Obama's personal commitment to the issue - when poverty and the poor are not discussed.
The Washington Times called the issue of poverty a "casualty of indiscretion." I disagree. But, given the many forces in our political system pushing better-represented groups ahead in line, I worry that poverty may become a "casualty of politics as usual," despite the good intentions of our president-elect.
Elizabeth Rigby, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Houston and a Research Affiliate at the National Center for Children and Families at Columbia University. Her work examines the politics of poverty and inequality across a range of child and family programs, including Food Stamps, early childhood education, and Medicaid/SCHIP. She can be reached by email: erigby@uh.edu or her website: www.polisci.uh.edu/faculty/erigby
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
wKjIZAmGrVTG%2BXffhAEc1wfBZ%2FgJ02DA8nuwuCxph2b%2F0nsKdIRgHLI%2FHKG7OPoHVVPFacqb9supJaCTm%2BGngw%3D%3D
%2FI0yCuWYSbkuIiB8EY9rU42zBAP43EK3VGKsE4nISnJ5e1MQIDML3VAQK9R1XwlEsrYS6Gq7ibqypVYhm211RA%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
QGXig0mUl7amU4ZA2HAhYkDY1vi%2BuWcM
TgQFGKvxs7dZt6bubLGoUSQAwCqw54FT
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 3
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
People still fail to understand that Obama's principle vision is that if you lift the middle class that you lift all boats because you create upward mobility so they can move up into the upper class and the poor can move into lower middle class. Obama speaks in broad terms and thats the key to his vision if you form broad coalition rather than narrow interests everyone benefits. If you start treating the poor as if they are not part of the working class that theya re just a separate segment it stigmatize them. The poor needs to form coaltion with the working class which needs to form coalition with the middle class. Jobs is how you deal with poverty. Jobs that pay well. Early education by spending the money on children when they are at the critical age is how you deal with poverty. Giving students the opportunity to go to college by letting them know that if they volunteer they can get their tuition paid for is how you deal with poverty. Retraining the work force having young people in Urban areas install solar panels laying broadband in rural areas these are some of the programs targeted at poverty but it just isnt called Programs targeted at poverty cause then it stigmatize people.
Carol
It is sometimes most effective to say very little about your intentions. Keeping your opponents in the dark is always good strategy.
What you have said, rf-hawaii, is often true, but is that what we should expect from our
democratic government. The American Founding Fathers carried out a forceful revolution against King of England, because they did not want a stealth government, and they proudly announced their intentions in the "Declaration of Independence":
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
This is why John Edwards spoke up against government corruption:
Watch the video:
http://www
Don't give up. Your Country needs you.
KEEP FIGHTING!!!!
The Power to bring change is within us, the American people.
"SOME OF US ARE BRAVE!!!!"
Click on link:
http://www
We will not see any special drive against "poverty". Wars on poverty are now a polical loser; the perception that people are poor because they are lazy or dumb (and by implication not worthy of our concern) is now embedded in the public discourse.
President-Elect Obama campaigned for the middle classs. If he can carry through on protecting the middle, we can at least keep the ranks of those in poverty from growing.
The recent economic crisis (really, crises) has put the middle class at front and center. The middle class is a larger population, and larger voting block. Until the middle class is "secure," policy and press for low-income families are going to be on the back-burner.
Knowing how beaurocracy works, poverty will no doubt be renamed. After all, we no longer hear about hunger, the new term is "food insecurity". The gov't is full of fools who believe that you can alleviate a problem by renaming it. Any ideas for new names? Money insecurity?
As an activist for low income families, I think the times are going to make it impossible to ignore. We will be facing large breadlines soon as I am already seeing it at the local food bank and the double digit unemployment, the layoffs and housing crisis, as well as millions of families who face homelessness due to the high cost of rents,. will make it impossible to ignore.
My concern is how we view poverty. The poor, especially poor women, have been demonized, especially since the Reagan era that has devastated families for over 30 years by taking away community support and refusing to see the family as anything that contributes to this country's future. We see kids and burdens rather than the our prospect, refusing to acknowledge that our future depends upon them for everything from our own care in our old age to who is going to run this country after our generation can no longer do it. Thus motherhood and women's work is denigrated to the point that it is considered "doing nothing and recreational" according to Welfare Reform. Instead CEOs are the one considered "doing something" for this country while they do little for anyone but themselves.
I know what I write is radical, but it is true. Sill a mere change of perspective could relieve so much poverty if it were recognized as worthwhile work.
My 2 cents
Cat In Seattle
It's not radical, it's silly. At least the part about CEOs not contributing anything. Those that sign up for motherhood generally do it freely, and the terms of payment (or non-payment) are well understood by the participants.
It's not at ALL silly. How dare you? It's another form of the sexism that is also pervasive in the halls of academic and in the boardrooms of the very CEOs you seem to support. Goofy post...
Cat,
Thanks for your post. Very meaningful. Please pay no attention to those who probably aren't current on their child support payments.
Let's see how his years as a community organizer will assist the poor in this country. Look at w. and what he did not do for the poor, drowning in N. Orleans. If we did not have TV, 24/7, those people would all be dead. W. had no intention of saving their lives. Why? As Kanye said, "George Bush does not care about black people." Add to that: "people, any people, especially if they are poor, living in grinding poverty, sick, helpless, destitute.
Boo hoo. While FEMA failed New Orleans, turning it into "Bush doesn't care about black people" just doesn't play with people with triple digit IQs.
It wasn't that they were black, it was that they were democrats. Bush lost Louisiana, Macane won it as the democrats had either died or had been absorbed in Texas and other red states.
Why? As Kanye said, "George Bush does not care about black people."
Unless they're Republicans.
There is something deep missing in w. and it is called compassion, empathy, and good will towards others.
He said he was a Compassionate Conservative. Guess he was just spoofing us.
I think that you have to give Reagan credit for such a fabulous job with his welfare queen myths.
However, people are going bankrupt to the tune of 500,000 per year because of overwhelming HEALTHCARE CHARGES...
And who will decide what reasonable is?
Universal healthcare & low income housing are big on his agenda... don't you think that addresses the poor, as well? Those are just two programs that come immediately to mind.
As a community organizer, he knows how to get things done & knows where help is needed.
I just wish everyone would relax... he doesn't actually take office 'til January 20th. (sigh)
Yes, ChicagoSuz, let me underline and bold what you said, "I just wish everyone would relax...he doesn't actually take office 'til January 20th. (sigh)"
It's so frustrating to have all these people jump the gun judging Obama when he hasn't even had a chance to be sworn in.
I know it's hard when everything is crumbling around us....but let's try to chill a bit.
Huge sigh.
I have heard too many people talk about the plight of the middle class including Obama, but I hear very little from him and others about the plight of the poor.
He never talked about the poor to any degree, despite all the vaunted talk about his community organizer.
well, i think that most people that of the wars that president pan has started, his war on the middle class is the one where he's achieved the most success
if the republicans can stop the auto industry bailout, we may all be living in "georgetowns" (the current era's equivalent of "hoovervilles")
Or we may wind up in a world where bailouts aren't necessary anymore, because businesses will plan for the future knowing they won't be bailed out.
yup you betcha
we'll all be living in galt's gulch -- the promised land
I disagree with author of this blog. The impression I get of Hillary is that she thought she
deserved a "great job" and she got it.
Meanwhile, President-Elect Barack Obama has chosen, mostly, Wall Street promoters and corporate lawyers to be in his cabinet. He hasn't included anyone who knows how to interact and relate with everyday American citizens, and then report back to him concerning: (1) what the people need, and
(2) whether his administration’s new initiatives are working. During the Great Depression, Eleanor Roosevelt fulfilled this role for President Franklin D. Roosevelt. I nominate Senator John Edwards for this role. John Edwards, has consistently spoken up for average Americans. During his “Road to One America Poverty Tour” John Edwards filled a void that has returned.
The video evidence follows:
He has walked with and comforted people whose homes were being foreclosed:
http://www
Defined the “Great Moral Test of Our Generation”:
http://www
He has visited workers employed in the new renewal energy economy:
http://www
John Edwards is, also, the only candidate for President that actually went down to New Orleans on several occasions and worked along side those striving to try to bring back the areas that remain so devastated from the effects of Hurricane Katrina:
http://www
Sorry, Edwards has done himself in for good for quite awhile...y
Allow be to introduce you to Senator John Edwards. He is married to Elizabeth Edwards and they have three lovely living children, and a deceased son they miss very much. They are a well-to-do family, who like to spend their time helping others. Elizabeth fights for Universal Health Care (by the way she has incurable breast cancer) for all Americans, and John fights to end poverty in America. During John’s Presidential campaign, while promoting these issues, the entire family traveled to New Orleans (on more than one occasion) to help out with the rebuilding efforts. Click on the link below and see some the pictures taken during their trips to New Orleans:
Click to watch the Video evidence:
http://www
And yet, all of the other candidates have dirt as well, but you never heard about it, because they didn't mean squat when they talked about change, as Obama's "STATUS QUO" cabinet shows.
mec57
Sorry, Edwards has done himself in for good for quite awhile...y
Newt Gingrich seems to be making a comeback. Back from the fraud?
It's the latest MSM meme......
Poverty has "CAUSES."
John Edwards focused on the "CAUSES" of poverty.
The discussion of those "CAUSES" is off the political radar.
Get it straight media.
I'm sick of media using the word "POVERTY" as if the word itself means anything.
Addressing the "CAUSES" of poverty is what should matter. Using a word doesn't mean squat.
If corporations and Wall Street continue getting everything they ask for, poverty will continue to increase on Main Street and back roads throughout this country.
If the Obama administration works to INCREASE WAGES, lower health care costs, and make sure that energy costs stabilize on the lower end, and helps young people and families AFFORD COLLEGE and save instead of getting everything on credit falling further and further into debt, POVERTY in this country WILL DECREASE. More than 60% of people living in poverty, work. Probably more than 90% of people who work have been hard time affording health care and sustaining a middle class way of life, which has pushed more into poverty or feeling like they ARE impoverished, even if they aren't statistically.
The word "poverty" is irrelevant UNLESS people understand what's causing more of it. Would I like to hear the word more? YES, as long as it is part of discussions about what has caused it, namely REAGANOMICS and regressive conservative economic policies.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
