Dr. King's Other Dream: Ending Poverty

Dr. Martin Luther King had more than one dream.

Of course, King dreamt of racial reconciliation, and January 20th's inauguration of Barack Obama demonstrates the nation's enormous, albeit inconsistent and incomplete, racial progress.

King also called for making service to others a centerpiece of American life, saying "Everybody can be great because anybody can serve." The Obama inauguration is perfectly honoring that legacy by marking Dr. King's birthday as a national day of community service.

But the King dream that was perhaps the most fiercely opposed during his time -- and has been most overlooked since his death -- was his call to slash poverty in the U.S. and ensure that all Americans had enough to eat. As King said, "What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn't earn enough money to buy a hamburger?"

Ralph Abernathy, who led the Poor People's Campaign in the wake of King's assassination, lamented how white northerners, sympathetic when southern African-Americans were violently attacked for sitting at lunch counters, had notably less sympathy when they tried to dramatize the extent of poverty and hunger nationwide. Said Abernathy: "It was easy enough to blame a southerner for barring his restaurant door...but who was the northern white man to blame for nationwide hunger, except himself, and who would have had to pay for the cure?"

Ironically, had America ever chosen to do so, it could have wiped out domestic poverty and hunger far more rapidly than it could have achieved King's goals of racial equality or world peace. As King also said, "There is nothing new about poverty. What is new is that we now have the techniques and the resources to get rid of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will."

Although conservatives have convinced most Americans that the War on Poverty was a failure, that's just not true. Between 1960 and 1973, as a result of both broad-based economic growth and government anti-poverty initiatives, the nation's poverty rate was cut in half, and more than 16 million previously poor Americans entered the middle-class. While the Great Society surely had flaws and excesses, it succeeded spectacularly in achieving its main goal of reducing poverty.

But the nation lost the political will to continue fighting the War on Poverty, and its programs were subsequently under-funded, gutted, or abandoned entirely. Our country's economic policies fostered the replacement of lifetime living-wage jobs with temporary employment at poverty wages. By 2007, fully 37.2 million Americans lived below the meager federal poverty line, 14 million more than in 1973. Childhood poverty now costs our nation's economy $500 billion per year, equivalent to four percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product, according to a study by the Center for American Progress.

Is the answer to simply resurrect and re-fund all the Great Society Programs? No. Since the nature of poverty and the American economy have changed since the 1960's, our anti-poverty strategies must also change.

A good place to start would be finally meeting a central demand of King's Poor People Movement: enacting a federal nutrition safety net robust enough to end domestic hunger. The federal government currently sponsors more than a dozen food assistance programs, but each has its own application and eligibility determination system, and each serves too few people, with too little in benefits. President-elect Obama has already pledged to end domestic child hunger (which now affects more than 12 million American children) by 2015. To achieve that goal, the President and Congress should streamline the existing nutrition programs and use modern technologies to allow eligible families to access all of them with one application, which would save money through decreased bureaucracy. The money saved should be pumped directly into increased food benefits.

Beyond that, we need an entirely new framework for addressing domestic poverty. While our political leaders still tend to choose ideological sides -- and flatly declare that either faltering economics or personal irresponsibility alone is responsible for poverty -- that's a false choice. Increased government support, economic growth, community involvement, and a focus on personal responsibility are all needed to solve the problem. The country should enact an "Aspiration Empowerment Agenda" that gives all families the opportunity to advance their dreams through hard work and responsible choices, enabling them to earn, learn, and save their way out of poverty.

True, this will take additional government spending. Since the most fundamental feature of poverty is a lack of money, trying to fight poverty without money is like trying to fight a drought without water. But no matter the price tag, it won't come close to the dismal cost of doing nothing. If we truly want to honor Dr King's full legacy, and if President Obama wants to start building his own in a practical and immensely meaningful way, the time for new action against poverty is now.

Comments

[cayuse]

Not just for the MLK lagacy but for his motivation that cost him his life.

"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"

Equality has nothing to do with getting rich or richer on INTEREST alone, while others labor and suffer for it. The genius does not come from INTEREST either. It comes from giving opportunity to all where ideas of man can contribute to society.

As Hilary Clinton said: Are running this country LIKE PLANTATIONS. Without EQUALITY of labor and earning there will be only 2 classes RICH and POOR

[Endangered]

"Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victim."

-Martin Luther King, Jr.,

Conservatives want to deny population problems exist, left wingers fantasize we can belt-tighten and re-distribute our way out aided by some coming scientific panacea. The numbers disprove both. Although it is not the singular cause of poverty, overpopulation remains the core of the problem. Solve the upsteam problem and you address not only poverty but also resource shortages, climate change, vanishing forests, dwindling species, etc.

[cayuse]

How do you stop over population

Equal wealth distribution rewarding those who work not get rich owner receiving appreciation from ownership.

Higher wages for the effort of production and the genius that creates the technology. That does not come from Trading Issued Stock.

Equal opportunity for Free education so you can enter and upgrade your knowledge

With equality people keep working and enjoying life rather than seeking survival pleasures

[PATina]

You're right... too few people know of Dr. King's work on the Poor People's Campaign. It always angers me when people call Jesse Jackson a "poverty pimp"... I always wonder if they would call Dr. King the same thing had he lived and continued to fight for the rights of poor people.

Anyway... I think you are correct. We could very easily wipe out poverty in this country. Just look at how much money people spend on the Powerball and other lottery games (not to mention the amount we will spend to support an athlete's multi-million dollar salary). I'm not saying we can't have those things... but to spend all that money and then say that we can't do anything about poverty is a big lie. We have the means... what we lack is the will to prioritize the way we use our money.

[stell]

That is correct. Those with the will lack the ability, and those with the ability lack the will.

[RightWingMarine]

so much money has been wasted in attempts to fight poverty that it would have been more efficient to simply give every poor person a million dollars. The problem is that poor people have the ability to live off the govt through welfare programs. These need to be severely curtailed and let private charities take over. This would result in lower taxes which would directly help the poor and enable more Americans to give money to the charties that can help the people that still need it.

[PATina]

More money has been wasted on the lottery.

Also... the private charity route... been there done that... doesn't work either (which is how we ended up w/ welfare type programs to begin with).

[Dukedraven]

I have a problem with just adding Great Society programs. That won't get at the root of the problem, which includes educational disadvantages. In his book "Outliers," Gladwell provides a good outline for the causes of success. I accept his argument that eliminating summer vacations in poor districts would help students academically. Smaller classes and more time spent on math and science would also help people get out of poverty. Americans can be as competitive as Asians in school. It's only a myth that we can't.

[PATina]

The problem I have w/ your idea is that we already have a dearth of college graduates who can't find jobs... or are not getting paid enough to properly care for a family. Don't get me wrong... increased educational opportunities will help... but there has to be more than that.

[Killer]

"Additional government spending" does not necessarily mean unwise spending. If done well, it can be a sound investment. I am one example, a Viet Nam veteran who got through college on the GI Bill. As a middle-class wage earner, I am happy to pay a little more so others who need some support can realize the dream that I have accomplished.

[stell]

Poverty is an outgrowth of racism. Ghandi said that poverty is the worst form of violence.
Many don't understand that poverty just refers to a lack of something, not necessarily just money.

In Obama's race speech he said:

"Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communitie­s."

These things are obviously offenses, hence poverty being the violence that keeps things the way they are. In the same way that that assets transferred from slave owners to the present day, the system has produced what we see today specifically with black brown peoples worldwide. Systems produce things.

Another thing cliche we hear is that blacks just need education, well if someone won't even treat you right why would they teach you right. Once again look what the system produced; whites could have made blacks all geniuses. But that wasn't the aim.

[LillianB]

Last year, I read the documentary book "The Last Campaign" about Robert F. Kennedy's campaign of 1968. Large parts of that campaign were about ending social injustices and creating a more united America, socially and racially.

I was struck by how many of the problems RFK described are still present in the US of today. So many things have changed, but yet, so many structural problems are the same, and so is their reason: Poverty.

Obama has been compared to JFK due to his charisma. I think and hope he will turn out to stand closer to RFK policy-wise. If he does, he will also fulfill that other dream of Dr. King.