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