One Quarter of Americans Still Don't Believe It -- What About You?

In Paris, sixty years ago today, the U.N. General Assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Access to food is the right of "everyone," says its Article 25. Yet, a new World Public Opinion poll reports that one in four Americans still rejects its premise -- that it is government's responsibility to protect citizens' right to eat.

The extent of America's depend-on-yourself-or-die stance may be unique: In eighteen of the twenty-one nations surveyed, at most one in ten respondents shares this view.

Cliches abound as to why the U.S. stands alone. The positive spin chalks it up to the "rugged individualism" of our "frontier spirit." I'm not so sure. Consider the less romantic, more recent power of the steady drip, drip, drip of market ideology from the Reagan era onward, telling us to shrink government's responsibilities.

But then, in 2008, the drip suddenly stopped and that ideology seemed to be spiraling down the drain. When the depth of our financial crisis began sinking in, even a dazed Alan Greenspan acknowledged that his self-regulating market may require public action. As the crisis spreads hunger at unprecedented speed, an estimated one in ten Americans now depends on food stamps, and the number of hungry people world wide jumped by 40 million just this year, the U.N. said this week. So nearly a billion people face hunger today -- roughly twice as many as the early 70s when hunger first hit the international marquee. And in a time when there is no shortage of food, period.

If citizens' having real choice is the heart of democracy -- and no human being chooses to go hungry -- we might ponder: Isn't hunger's very existence proof of a deficit of democracy? If so, this anniversary day might be a perfect moment to rethink what it could mean to shift the frame to food as a human right.

Consider what difference it made in Brazil's fourth largest city, Belo Horizonte, when a new administration was elected there in 1993 on a food-as-a-right platform.

Drawing diverse sectors into common problem-solving, that new administration's stance spawned dozens of innovations: Farm stands on public plots linking local growers and inner-city consumers. (With middlemen removed, farmers' profits grew even though the government capped prices.) Two huge public restaurants daily serving 12,000 people nutritious meals for the equivalent of less than 50 cents each; bus stop announcements alerting citizens where to find their best basic-food buys; produce markets where prices for twenty-five items sell for a third less than the market price; nutritious "waste," including egg shells, ground into flour for school kids' daily bread; extensive community gardens, and more.

Within a decade Belo Horizonte had cut its infant death rate -- the best measure of hunger -- in half. And the cost? Less than 2 percent of the city budget, or roughly one penny a city-resident per day.

Like the citizens of Belo, Americans can come to see that access to food as a right does not necessarily mean more public handouts. It can mean redefining the "free" in "free market" as the freedom of all to participate in it and the freedom of new businesses to enter, unblocked by global oligopolies now dominating every major sector. It might mean, as in Belo, citizen-government partnerships driven by values of inclusion and mutual respect.

To move toward that possibility, we Americans can seize this historic shift in presidential philosophy to recommit to democracy by removing the power of private wealth over public decision making -- consider the $16 million a day spent last year lobbying Congress -- and opening new avenues for the voices of millions of citizens to be heard. Only then will new rules emerging from today's economic ruins get shaped in the interests of all, including our interest in eating.

In imagining food as a right of citizenship, please note: No change in human nature is required! Through most of human evolution -- except for the last few thousand of roughly 200,000 years -- Homo sapiens lived in societies where pervasive sharing of food was the norm. As food sharers, "especially among unrelated individuals," humans are unique, writes authority on hunter-gatherer food transfers, Michael Gurven. Except in times of extreme privation, when some eat, all eat.

In that spirit, I'm happy to report a victory last week for those who harvest our food but often go without themselves: The Coalition of Immokalee Workers -- farmworkers in Florida -- reached an agreement with Subway, the third largest fast-food chain in the world and the biggest fast-food buyer of Florida tomatoes. Subway agreed to help improve wages and working conditions. When these farmworkers began organizing in the 90s, their wages had not increased in twenty years. (I'll be saluting their victory at our Small Planet Fund Gala Wednesday night in NYC, where the Immokalee Worker's Lucas Benitez will be our guest of honor. To join us, visit the site.)

In 1948 Eleanor Roosevelt led the charge for universal recognition of essential human rights. Let us now, finally, catch up with our ancestors, both recent and ancient.

Frances Moore Lappe, of the Cambridge-based Small Planet Institute, is the author or co-author of sixteen books, including World Hunger: Twelve Myths and Getting a Grip: Clarity, Creativity, and Courage in a World Gone Mad.

Comments

[Bardmess]

One out of four Americans don't believe in basic human rights? This is not a surprise, considering the level and duration of brainwashing the unread public has received. Everyone please see "The Power of Nightmares". This three part BBC documentary succinctly explains what the Neo-con agenda is, and details precisely how this was packaged and sold to the American people who are so conveniently plugged into the medium used to inject the propaganda. People who don't read are sitting ducks for this ideology and it has been pumping into them for at least 35 years.

[piul05]

Very well said! The American ethos of extreme individualism, equal opportunities ( as opposed to equity), competition (as opposed to cooperation) means nothing if people are too sick, too weak, and prematurely shuffles off their mortal coils. Much of the discourse on freedom concentrates on political and institutional aspects because, in fact, they create the conditions for unfettered capitalism; freedom from want, on the other hand barely receives a passing commentary.

Fortunately, most of the world has seen it for what it really is - social darwinism - and rejects it.

[CanuckChomsky]

Hear, hear! Well said, Ms. Lappe! You too, SeriousBlack!

[SeriousBlack]

Wow, I can just imagine the responses this will get from conservatives considering their usual response to socialized medicine (and yes, notice me using the term SOCIALIZED medicine in a context - mine, at least - in which that ISN'T a bad word).

Counting the nanoseconds until I see the word "communism" lol.

[publicmenace]

Communism

[laocoon]

I wonder how much Bwalsh has actually gone into the streets and seen how and how completely charity provides for the less fortunate. Try getting a growth biopsied at an ER or try treating a chronic illness through an ER for example. I would find the laissez faire philosophy more reasonable if it was not the case that government has and does provide services that essentially divides up everything within the jurisdiction leaving a substantial number of people out. I have lived as a homeless person and it is striking how completely government is involved on the side of the haves when a have wants a have not controlled in some way. As the divide between rich and poor grows greater the rich become more and more isolated from the poor and increasingly justify the gulf by thinking of the poor as almost another lesser species. If the essential purpose of government is not to protect the life and health of each person I think government lacks legitimacy and is inherently a form of warfare or invasion.

[bwalsh1]

It is not a "depend on yourself or die" attitude, but it is an attitude where people take responsibility for themselves and their actions, but also help others. People today need to learn what taking responsiblity for your actions means. Your actions have consequences. If, as a CEO or executive, you employ poor business practices and overpay your employees while putting out a less than high quality product, your company will go bankrupt. Instead, today executives line up outside of Congress to ask for a handout. Did these executives take care of their employees? No, their employees need to take care of themselves with the help of their families, friends and communities. Relying on Big Business or Big Government to take care of you is foolish, and it stunts your persoanl development. The "self-reliance" you seem to despise is what helped make America the most powerful and affluent country in the world, and it is what allows us to be able to afford to feed not just ourselves, but the whole world.

[FearlessFreep]

American self-reliance has always been something of a myth.

[ChristianEcon.com]

It's propaganda enabling slavery and exploitation. "Self-reliance" only applies to the poorest.

[LewDan]

Your "self-reliance" never existed. America was built on slavery and exploiation not "self-reliance." Business routinely exploits workers and are subsidized through myriad tax incentives unavailable to citizens, they are not "self-reliant."

Just one example: all the "exempt" employees routinely forced by businesses to work extra hours without any additional pay or overtime. No citizen could demand a business work unscheduled hours without pay even if something unexpected or an emergency came up. But business thinks it has a perfect right to demand free labor from employees anytime the desire.You call that "self-reliant?"

We've stopped practicing slavery and now swear by "self-reliance" but its still all about exploitation. Until America stops worshiping greed and starts to consider the public good more important than giving some fat cat the opportunity to get fatter it will always be about exploitation.

People working together for the common good IS "self-reliance."

[hippynanainblingland]

Very well said!

[Sapphdia]

Damn... The mic has been broken. What else is there to say after that response....

[SeriousBlack]

The most affluent country in the world. Hmmmpph.

Only the top 5% or so of our population are "the most affluent in the world". Kinda important a distinction, doncha think?

Should a country which is OVERALL the most affluent in the world have the p_ss-poor health statistics that we have, in terms of infant mortality, etc.? Look those statistics up, bwalsh. We rank near the bottom in almost all measurable categories compared to all the other countries in the world. Yeah, THAT'S the most affluent country in the world. NOT.

[RoloTomassi]

This is nothing more than the standard, clueless and morally bankrupt "conservative" response, and has ZERO practical value or credibility; it's lack of value isn't in its core premise, but in its proponent's usage, which is and always has been deceptive and self-serving.

[bwalsh1]

I don't think anyone in America thinks it is okay to let a fellow human being starve to death. That is why we do share their food, we share it with the entire world. We donate money to charities that help feel the entire world, we have homeless shelters and soup kitchens in every city in America. Christian churches and individual Christians in every corner of our country routinely feed and shelter, and give other resources to those in need. Feeding the poor is one of the basic tenets of most of the world's religions, and I think that it is followed no where as much as in America. My children bring canned food for food pantries to school at every holiday for the food drives. We also have many gov't programs to ensure people with low incomes can still purchase food. If you starve to death in America, it is not because we don't have food available. If you starve to death in America, it is your fault, because the resources and programs are already available to ensure that noone does. I say this as someone who was once on governement assistance.

So, Americans are generous and we do share, why do we need the gov't to intervene? Americans hate being told that we must do something. It is an aversion to tyranny that Americans possess, even if the tyranny has our best interests at heart. Goverment control of our personal choices is simply not tolerated by Americans.

[FearlessFreep]

"I don't think anyone in America thinks it is okay to let a fellow human being starve to death."

But they seem to think it's OK to take food out of the mouths of children to teach their parents responsibility (if it's packaged as "reform").

[krocklin]

Most of the Republicans I know tacitely believe if you are poor it is your fault, and they are superior because they are prosperous.

What is it missing in their psyche? Is it a matter of a lack of conscience, a lack of compassion? They would scoff if you said that.

Best to get this straight before you engage in any futile debate with them.

[Querent]

How many times have you heard this: "Why should I have to pay taxes to feed their children?" This is the essence of the "self-reliance" ideology: If your parents can cope, you as a child should eat. If not, then you should not eat. This is why there is large-scale child hunger in America today. This is conservatism distilled to its essence.

[MomfromTexas]

I both agree and disagree with what you have said. I agree that there are many organizations that supply food. In the area in which I live, there are many food pantries--a women's center, a community center, and numerous churches. Within five minutes from my home, I could find probably, oh, ten places to get food? Of course, I live in a large city. In addition, there is a local church that participates in a national food drive, for which I could apply and buy a month's worth of food for twenty-five dollars that would be delivered to the church each month. Finally, if I wanted to drive twenty minutes, I could have a hot meal at the Salvation Army everyday.

Government intervention is still necessary, however. Eighteen million children depend on the free breakfasts and lunches that the schools supply. Sadly, considering the quality of much of this food, these are the only hot meals the children have everyday. (I worked in an inner-city school, where we had a food pantry and gave some children canned food to take home, also.) Eight million pregnant women, their babies or their toddlers depend on formula or food from WIC, which is supplied to states from federal grants.

[pons1595]

Edward Dowling: The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it. [1941]

[RoloTomassi]

Excellent quote!

[Tweet]

I'm amazed it's only 1 in 4. It seems there's a very real possibility of reversing Reagan's destruction of what it means to be an American.

[Pdubya]

If the gubment allowed all people to keep the fruits of their labor, then perhaps we'd have enough to feed our selves and others.

[FearlessFreep]

How would you pay for Stealth bombers? Take up a collection?

[Pdubya]

We'd need a lot less if we weren't in 130 countries with 700 bases.

[philko]

Interesting question.

If "taking a collection" is the conservative's way of addressing social programs, then why shouldn't the same method be used for defense programs?

We could call it "faith-based defense", talk up the tradition that "Americans have always come together to defend their communities" and even build up a new mythology that the defenseless are just plain lazy.

[degenerate1991]

We don't need stealth bombers.

[hippynanainblingland]

Check out fairtax.com for an interesting take on taxes!

[likecarew]

i really appreciate the message of this piece, which i took as actionable -- we can take our "Yes We Can" attitude and energy and apply it to real fundamental change -- not just who sits in the White House but way beyond into our communities and the world at large. we can take the lesson of belo horizonte and make it ours and be another example for other nations.

congrats, too, to the CIW!

[MSB]

America as it currently stands is appalling.

We can't find money to guarantee excellent education, food, housing, medicine or even equal access to voting, but we can bankrupt our country in funding two corrupt wars which make us no safer, enrich the wealthiest amongst us and destroy our economy and the environment. We really are the shining city on the hill......... the issue is hill of what?

When the average republican voter has been foreclosed on, is living in the street, is eating out of a dumpster behind a restaurant catering to the wealthy and is drinking tainted water to stay alive, I hope they remember small government and the lie of class warfare, they would be able to pull the lever for their next faith-based candidate except for the fact that they will be purged from the voting rolls because they have no mailing address. At least they can die of exposure knowing that they supported a candidate who claimed to have a mandate from god. It's a win-win!!!

[SeriousBlack]

Well said, MSB.

[HalfTruism]

"America's depend-on-yourself-or-die stance is unique"

How is it that a greedy minority defines America's stance in your mind? Why is it that the other 75% don't count?

[saami]

Believe it or not rich Republicans really do believe that if you are not rich like them it is your fault. They truly believe that they are better than the rest of us. I know this is true, my ex-husbands family were very rich and they and their friends believed it and talked about it with no shame. They also thought of themselves as good Christians.
The basics of life: food, clothing, shelter and healthcare should be a right. There should be a minimum that no one can fall below. We are all Americans and we are all people who have the right to have our basic needs met. Why are people so heartless and so selfish to not see their fellow citizens in need? Please do not harp on me about the lazy, the people who don't deserve it, etc. I don't honestly care about that; I do care about my fellow citizens being OK. Someoone who has their basic needs met can be a better parent, learner, worker, citizen, etc.

[bwalsh1]

I am not rich or republican, but isn't this kind of stereotyping and generalizing the kind of behavior democrats abhore when it occurs to minority groups? Maybe when people practice what they preach we can actually get something done, instead of spending all our time insulting each other.

BTW, that is the American dream, that anyone can rise to a high level of wealth and prominence based on hard work and merit. So, if America has already provided the opportunity, it is up to the individual to rise to the occasion. I am not naive, I realize that this ideal doesn't exist. However, I also believe that it is true that hard working, intelligent, resourceful people deserve to be rewarded for their efforts.

BTW, the basics as you call them are already a right. Catholic hospitals and ER's do not turn anyone away, even those with no money or insurance. Homeless shelters and food pantries are available across the country to make sure no one goes hungry. Churches provide charitable food, shelter, and clothing to anyone in need, regardless of their own creed. All of these efforts are funded by private donations, because Americans are generous and care about their fellow Americans needs. And, there are government assistance programs available to assist Americans. The basic needs of every American can be met, unless they do not wish to seek assistance.

[FearlessFreep]

The other 75% don't count because they let the 25% shape policy too much of the time.

[Querent]

Gee, could it possibly be because the greedy minority are the ones who have power in this country?