A good friend of mine, who is a Carmelite Priest once used the phrase, "wipe the poor off the face of the Earth" to summarize the philanthropic philosophy of evangelical mega churches whose leadership would rather eschew poor residents of their community than have multiple walking and talking contradictions to their sickening prosperity gospel.
Another institution of organized power that caters to the wealthy at the expense of nearly everyone else is the political structure of America.
A cursory glance at the 2008 presidential race reveals that popular public discourse not only deems poverty as a non-priority, but regards it, along with its millions of victims, as unworthy of discussion.
The failure of the Republican Party to address rising inequality, stagnating wages, high poverty rates, and public education misery, has become so predictable that it is simply boring.
However, at least it can be said that their candidates do not attempt to conceal their bitter contempt for Americans without summer homes. They are only given lip service when they can be cynically exploited to make a case for privatization of everything.
Watch the Republican debates and learn from Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson that the only solution to a public education system that allows upper-crust white districts to enjoy state of the art facilities, highly qualified teachers, and impressive resources, while poor, mostly minority districts suffer from under funding, lack of educators, and decrepit facilities, is to privatize the system, which would grant parents who are barely able to provide for their children, "choice."
Not a single Republican candidate is willing to allocate public funds to managing the health care crisis, which leaves 48 million citizens uninsured (most of whom are employed) and millions more under insured. Joining the third world health system parade are 16 million Americans who have filed bankruptcy due to outstanding health care debt.
Instead of properly addressing this national embarrassment and moral failure they ramble on about the Social Security crises, which is mainly a figment of the GOP’s collective imagination. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that the system is solvent for nearly fifty years and will remain so with minor adjustments – an obvious choice being to raise the cap of the regressive pay roll tax which is applied only to the first $97,500 of an individual’s income.
The only break in the endless drumbeat for the corporate right in the Republican debates has come from former Arkansas Governor and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee, whose claim to qualification is a promise to take millennium old fables literally and always politely smile. His campaign is an ear rattling nuisance for Republicans who wince at the sound of his populist rhetoric. However, they should take comfort in knowing that the rhetoric only goes so far and never materializes into policy positions.
His promise to battle what is left of the progressive income tax can be learned about from sources as obscure as his official website: "I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And do I mean all – personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment."
Considering that inequality and poverty are ignored on the campaign trail it is only natural that the causes of these societal woes are never mentioned.
Fair minded analysts agree that America’s near regression into a new gilded age is the result of corporate dominance over the political process.
Former Sec. of Labor Robert Reich’s latest book Supercapitalism describes an overwhelmed Capitol Hill where lobbyists not only influence legislation, but often write the bills. Reich urges readers to understand that Congressional debates over recent legislation do not represent disagreements over what best serves the public interest. They merely act as theater for various businesses fighting for a policy that would improve their bottom line.
In a rare moment of clarity in the mainstream press, Time summarized politics as usual in 2000:
"When powerful interests shower Washington with millions in campaign contributions, they often get what they want. But its ordinary citizens and firms that pay the price most of them never see coming…You pick up a disproportionate share of America’s tax bill…You’re compelled to abide laws while others are granted immunity from them…In contrast the fortunate few who contribute to the right politicians and hire the right lobbyists enjoy all the benefits of their special status."
The fact that a former Clinton Cabinet member and a magazine from the heart of American journalism have regarded "how a bill becomes a law" as legalized bribery does not interest Republicans who either ignore social injustice or blame it on illegal immigrants from Mexico. They have agreed that the only poor people worth discussion are those that can be condemned for minor crimes they were encouraged to commit by exploitative business owners seeking cheap labor from undocumented workers and expensive bargaining from unaccountable legislators.
While the GOP plays Medieval Times for its two most passionate voting bases – religious fanatics and corporate tyrants – progressive Americans desperately hope to find reasonable solutions from the Democratic Party, which has been awkwardly cast in the role of "loyal opposition."
Democrats are not dependent upon frightening constituents with brown skinned monsters from Iran that plot nuclear holocaust, or brown bandits from Mexico, conspiring to "destroy the West" with menial labor and Spanglish.
They are expected to address public education, health care, and equality in constructive fashion, which makes their failure to do so even more crushing than GOP negligence.
Frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama serve as hopeful projections for two groups of historically oppressed Americans.
The former first lady has attempted to build a broad network of forward thinking women, Americans nostalgic for "Hillarycare" and "It Takes a Village," and Democrats who prefer experience over charisma.
However, a close examination of this enticing political figure reveals a less than seductive pose. Clinton has accepted more contributions from the health industry than any Democrat, and therefore grants insurance companies more involvement in her health care plan than any other candidate. She still applauds her husband’s decision to sign NAFTA and the disastrous Welfare Reform Bill.
The only contrast to her neo-liberal mural is a promise to allow Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. While helpful and needed, this promise is too little in an economic climate that prompted Warren Buffett to comment, "If there was a class war, my side certainly won."
Whenever Hillary Clinton does speak compassionately about economic issues, her concern is directed solely towards the Middle-Class, who although undoubtedly face unprecedented pressure, also vote in far higher numbers than the poor. In other words, a Clinton victory requires support from Middle-Class voters, especially so called "Soccer Moms," while low income Americans, usually absent from the polls, are irrelevant.
Another Middle-Class champion who does not give equal time to poverty is Senator Obama. It is undeniable that he possesses irresistible charm and charisma. The youthful supporters and diverse constituencies that show up at his rallies, along with his fresh rhetorical style, serve as a strong indictment against the lethargy of American politics. Combine all of this with a potential end to the white man’s reign over the White House and it is easy to appreciate the excitement surrounding Obama.
The only characterization of Obama’s campaign more accurate than exciting is "mysterious." Although he is careful to insert the words "hope" and "change" in every other sentence, it can be difficult to decipher what change will come and what hope Americans will have with an Obama presidency.
He speaks often about his admirable decision to become a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago, but does not go into detail about the harsh poverty that has victimized the Chicago residents he assisted as a young man. He reminds voters that he spent time in the Illinois state legislature and therefore possesses a great understanding of federalism, but does not boast about his fine record, which includes enhancing tax credits for low income workers, increasing subsidies for child care, and fighting unlawful interrogation techniques.
His aversion to specificity has caused worry among leftist giants like Gore Vidal who said, "I have no idea what he is about," and Ralph Nader who degraded the Obama campaign as "all about mood."
Perhaps, Vidal and Nader are correct. The only other possibility is that Obama is playing this game like a fox by deemphasizing his positions in the hope that his personality will ascend him to the presidency, where he will be able to act on his muted principles. Although this scenario is possible, it is an awfully great risk to take.
That sort of risk was not mandatory with the candidacy of John Edwards, which grew more appealing with every appearance. Edwards is the only candidate who seems to believe there can be a class basis for politics, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich who has been unfairly cast into obscurity by the corporately controlled media.
The former Senator also seems to be the first candidate to discover that there is poverty in America. He advocates a resurgence of labor unions, a living wage for all Americans, and more progressive tax code. He even acknowledges how the measure to determine if a family lives in poverty is pathetically antiquated, due to its conformity to a US Dept. of Agriculture design first implemented over fifty years ago.
The only viable candidate willing to talk about the poor and confront the political and corporate forces that have manufactured their misery was assaulted in a myriad of ways from the aristocratic punditry.
He was called a hypocrite because he lives in a mansion and spends a lot of money on haircuts. It is revealing how the right considers maximization of profit an ultimate virtue, even if it depends upon poisoning a river, unless someone who has earned that profit chooses to speak for those that have not.
The next move in the pundit play book was to label Edwards as the "angry white man" – A bizarre insult also applied to Howard Dean when he criticized the unjust and illegal invasion of Iraq.
After deciding that Edwards was a hypocritical white male who talks about helping poor people but only accepts donations to visit a barber, they stopped talking about him completely. After the Iowa caucus, the media uniformly reported the results as "Obama wins. Hillary in Third."
By ignoring Edwards’ second place finish, they deemed him irrelevant and encouraged voters to forget about him. The poor were also off the table, and hold only one power in the land of opportunity: The power to frighten rich media elites so much that if a candidate merely mentions them, that candidate will be destroyed.
Most liberals blame Ronald Reagan for the devolution of discourse in America, where poverty and inequality have become unspeakable heresies mouthed only by "America haters" and angry lunatics.
The Gipper is held accountable for this framing of the issue because of his propensity to warn the country about "Welfare Queens" wearing mink coats and driving Cadillacs while their kids starve. However, at least when Reagan insulted and lied about the poor, he talked about them. His irresponsible accusations against low income families had an unintended benefit for them; they kept them in the debate.
They were systematically discarded from politics when Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich wrote and passed Welfare Reform that "ended Welfare as we know it." Serving as a nail in the coffin to Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, Clinton’s Welfare reform eroded social spending and forced struggling people into menial jobs, which largely explains the explosive growth of a category that is almost unique to America in the first world: working poor.
To the majority of policy makers and analysts "working poor" is an oxymoron. As long as someone is working, he or she is not poor. This explains the false liberalism of media fixation on unemployment rates.
If the poor are not mentioned, they are free to grow in number while the slums that inhabit them expand around the edges of white-flight suburbs and gentrified cities.
The situation may soon resemble an Augustinian City of God like dichotomy, only the tiny City of God will not represent the Christian Church, as Augustine and Huckabee would prefer, but those that bow to the alter of America’s unholy trinity – wealth, power, and status.
The expanding City of Man will be the home of rural desolate outposts that host bankrupted family farmers, manufacturers whose jobs are in Mexico and China, and small business owners rolled over by behemoth corporate chains. It will also represent the inner cities that have been targeted by an oppressive war on drugs, drained of educational resources, and denied financial opportunity.
These huddled masses will look out their window to see broke down schools, empty store fronts, and young people forced into an unfortunate life of crime. They will turn on the television hoping for solutions from leadership, only to find that they do not even exist in the thoughts and words of pundits and politicians.
The hideous combination of social, political and economic neglect will make them feel as if they have been wiped off the face of the Earth.
David Masciotra obtained a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of St. Francis in 2007. He is an active writer and former columnist with The Herald News of Joliet, IL. He lives in Dyer, IN and can be reached at [email protected]
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate