Did You Think I Was Kidding?
In my last post, I asked this question: "When was the last time you heard a presidential candidate even mention poverty? [Besides, incidentally, John Edwards]" I wasn't kidding. He's made it a major campaign issue. Today in the NY Times, Bob Herbert writes a revealing article about Edwards' concern for the poor in America, and his plan to eliminate poverty in 30 years.Here's a link to the article:
Herbert quotes Edwards:
The real story is not the number but the people behind the number. The men, women and children living in poverty -- one in eight of us -- do not have enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need. One in eight. That is not a problem. That is not a challenge. That is a plague.Edwards has also made an issue of global poverty, especially in Darfur. He probably can't pick up a whole lot of votes from Darfur, so I suspect his concern is legitimate. His plan is to create a new cabinet post on global poverty. You can read about that HERE.
I don't hear much from the Catholic candidates on global poverty. Or from the pro-life candidates, for that matter. That could be the same ol' problem with our lovely news media, but I'm glad Edwards' voice is getting through, at least, and I like what I hear.
posted by Alyosha @ 9:41 AM
4 Comments:
Alyosha:
I can relate to the appeal of John Edwards' candidacy. I have only donated to a political candidate once in my life, in the last election cycle, and it was to Edwards. I was drawn to him for many reasons but his willingness to address the issue of poverty in America was chief among them. Notwithstanding my Chicago residency and the huge appeal of Obama I was prepared to support Edwards once again this year. Until...
I was absolutely stunned by the revelation that Edwards had build and was inhabiting a 28,000 square foot home...that is 28 *thousand*, noting that 28 *hundred* square feet is a really big house!
I posted a plantive "say it isn't so, John" to the Edwards candidacy blog...which plantive cry was immediately deleted from the blog.
Honestly, I don't believe this is about resentment on my part. My read into my immediate visceral reaction was that John, however sensitive and thoughtful he may be, really doesn't *get* a critical fact about poverty in America: it is significantly about *relative* deprivation.
For many...though certainly not all...of the poor in America, poverty is not about imminent starvation. It is about enormous economic insecurity and deprivation relative to the afflunce all about them...poverty with plenty rubbed into your face everytime you turn on the TV or walk down the street. Overwhelming research from social psychology confirms that obscene displays of wealth intensify poverty. This isn't widely understood in the United States but it is implicated in the 'revolution of rising expectations' all over the world. Even as one's absolute consumption increases, it is common to experience increasing deprivation if those with whom comparisons are made are increasing in affluence even faster *and* if one's expectations are increasing even faster than their conccrete gains.
Clearly John doesn't get it. He believes himself entitled to display of extraordinary wealth with the undoubtedly sincere desire to make such wealth accessible to everyone. (Side note: as if the earth could sustain billions of people consuming at such an extreme level!)
So, however disgusting the Republican glee over the 28,000 swaure foot home and the $400 haircuts, the fact is that they do communicate something about John but more about we 'successful' American progressives who want to simultaneously bemoan poverty, condemn injustice, and yet retain an entitlement a lifestyle not even remotely consistent with an equitable division with the world's goods.
So John has clay feet. So does Obama. So do I. Is is certainly easier to 'talk the talk' than it is to 'walk the walk.'
Peace, Mike McG...
Hi Mike, thanks for joining in!
I agree completely. If I was voting for John Edwards based on his personal life choices, he wouldn't rank very high. And while this is a real and legitimate concern, it isn't why I'm voting for a candidate.
My hope is that he will DO something about poverty. I know he's no saint and his wealth is obscene, but wealthier, showier people HAVE done wonderful things for the poor throughout history.
Their showy wealth isn't admirable, but their accomplishments are. Sometimes it takes that kind of wealth and power to speak with power and act with power. Sometimes we simple-living liberals are afraid of the opposition, because we can lose what little we have. I don't think Edwards is afraid. That's a real bonus point in my mind.
But I do agree with you. I don't like that aspect of Edwards, or his views on abortion, or the fact that he SIGNED THE PATRIOT ACT! That's the worst of all! But so far, he's my guy, even under that hair cut.
This reminds me of a story Bono told, I think in a 60 Minutes interview.
He said there's a big difference between the way Irish and American people view wealth.
An American looks at a 27,000 sq ft mansion on the hill and says: "You know, one of these days I'm going to get me one of those!"
An Irishman looks at a 27,000 sq ft mansion on the hill and says: "You know, one of these days I'm going to get that son-of-a-bitch!"
Eh Mike McG? :)
I think that John Edwards is the real deal. Because of his wife's illness, he probably won't get the Democratic nomination, but he still is getting the message out. He is the ONLY candidate talking about poverty in the USA and the widening gap between rich and poor.
Post a Comment
<< Home