Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Senator Clinton's "Poor" Plan
Senator Clinton announced a plan to cut poverty just a few days before the Ohio primary vote.
Why?
Seriously, why does her campaign staff think this will help her win? And how could she possibly think that - win or lose - her statement will help create public and political will for the policies she promotes: a higher minimum wage, pre-K, improving child support collection, etc?
Her plan incorporates lots of ideas we’ve identified and include on The Mobility Agenda list of new ideas for good jobs: democratic workplaces, health care, paid family leave, etc. She also has a laundry list of additional good ideas that support economic and social mobility: expanding green jobs, more strategies for worker advancement, etc.
It’s just so…. not cool…. that she put all these great ideas under the poverty headline!
Using the poverty banner means it is unlikely that announcing this plan will generate support.
While lots of people want to do something about poverty—it’s not a high priority for voters.
I’ve written about the problems with a poverty target before.
* The U.S. definition of poverty is out of date and flawed.
* Public understanding of the causes of and remedies for poverty hinders adoption of the policy solutions we seek to address it.
* Defining the issue as “poverty” opens the door to opposing arguments that see the issue through a lens that works against us. If we're forced into an argument about personal responsibility, we'll fail. We already lost that fight in battles over welfare. Why we would we want to engage in it again?
In fact, Clinton's announcement proves the last point. She gave the Heritage Foundation an opening:
Robert Rector, senior research fellow on welfare and family issues at
the Heritage Foundation, says Clinton refuses to even acknowledge the
two primary causes of child poverty -- out-of-wedlock births, and
parents living on welfare instead of working. "What she wants to do is
combat poverty by putting the responsibility on the U.S. taxpayer, who
already spends about $450 billion a year fighting poverty," says
Rector, "while [at the same time] specifically avoiding the issue of
changing the behaviors that are the cause of poverty.”
See the problem?
Comments (1)
The use of words like poverty, or phrases like “end poverty”, appear to work as loaded epithets in some circles. One of your points is to find different language or style so not to inflame these circles, and thus allow you and others to address the root issues.
"End poverty?! They might as well screamed socialized health care!" I think I understand the point.
Clinton released her economic policy several weeks ago - reported over at Alternet.org(1). Why did she release it again only days away from the Ohio primary with the title, ending poverty? Maybe using a familiar term is a double-edged sword. It cuts to the point, but it leaves you open to be flanked by Rector, and it doesn’t explain in detail the root causes of poverty.
What if I said Clinton is not trying to persuade the likes of the Heritage Foundation this week or trying to implement policy tonight, or get bogged down in detailed examples? What if everything she does is intended to reach out to those remaining 10 -12 % of voters who are still making up their minds in the last days before the March 4th vote. Those voters tend to bank to her favor (2). HIllary Clinton’s fight today is to win the March 4th voter. She is attempting to remind people -in poverty- they’re not forgotten and she is fighting for them.
Perhaps her word choice or style doesn’t reach you, and instead you're reminded of the stalled policy wars you appear to have also endured. If she makes it into the general, that's the moment to argue the details of how our government can better rely to the public the root causes of poverty. Maybe I’m being optimistic. Then again, I don’t see Newt, or Delay, or Trent Lott, or Frist, or even the Heritage Foundation in any current position of real political influence in Congress. Is Pelosi or Reid listening to them? I think those days are behind us and I hope the days when liberals were berated and policy was stalled because of the use of politically corrected language and style are over too --thus leaving the room open to talk about substance.
You appear to agree with the substance of Clinton’s economic policy, and perhaps you’re right, loaded epithets like, end poverty, will inflame old wars and will end in stalled policy and nobody will change. I have to admit this is a talking point by Barack Obama that has impressed Democratic voters. Perhaps if Obama’s economic policy was as comprehensive and progressive as Hillary Clinton’s, and if Clinton’s style and word use was as persuading as Obama’s, we’d (dare I say it for sake of brevity), end poverty and implement Universal Health Care.
I wish Clinton could make a speech to explain to people the era of the the conservative jerry-rigging is over, and that they don’t have to fear a repeat of the 1994 conservative revolution. I think her decision to focus on being a fighter who battled through and survived the conservative era doesn’t resonate with people who are more swayed with style and nuance. Style seems to be winning people over rather than Clinton’s attempt to reassure people conservative jerry-rigging and monkey wrenching won’t undermine her leadership as she fights for the poor and for the security of our nation.
Unfortunately, I don’t know how to say everything I just said in a matter of fifteen second or to boil it down into a catchy slogan. People’s eyes roll back when too much detail is handed out.
(1)http://www.alternet.org/election08/77319/?page=5
(2)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/02/whos_the_better_closer.html
March 1, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment