New York Times Ed Board Misses on Thanksgiving
A Thanksgiving Day editorial by the NYT focuses on the "safety net" for the poor - a typical holiday topic and framing of the issue made more topical than usual by the current economy.
And while nothing the editorial writer says is wrong exactly, this kind of exhortation of our federal government to improve the measurement of poverty won't accomplish much.
Yesterday's posting - Poverty - We Need a New Goal More Than a New Measure - turns out to be a sort of unconscious anticipation of the Times sympathetic but misguided commentary.
At The Mobility Agenda, we track media coverage of poverty
proposals.
For example, this Manhattan Institute article, Getting Poverty Wrong, and the media followup is a good reminder that we will not achieve the policy results we seek (note the list of Obama proposals attacked in the article) with a conversation that makes people think in the usual way about poverty.
When we use this lens on the issue, we inevitably get a response from our
opponents that goes straight to the place Bill Cunningham (a very popular radio talk show host) does in this interview:"...they're poor because
they lack values, morals, and ethics."
A third interview lowlight:
"CUNNINGHAM: Steve Malanga -- the article is "Obama's counterproductive war on poverty." The war on poverty was declared in the 1960s. It was lost in the 1970s. The funding continued for poverty. You know, people are poor in America, Steve, not because they lack money; they're poor because they lack values, morals, and ethics. And if government can't teach and instill that, we're wasting our time simply giving poor people money."
Once you're in this discussion, there's no getting out of it in a good way. And there's no way to talk about poverty without ending up in this argument.
Plus, as noted yesterday, changing the measure, and even cutting poverty rates using an improved measure, is a very low bar to set for ourselves.
Instead, we need better goals addressing well-being and inclusion, leading to more and better jobs, creating stronger communities, and strengthening our democracy and economy.
Everyone lacks values, morals, and ethics. Is he telling us hedge fund CEOs are more moral than the rest of us? What a moran.
November 28, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If poor people had not squandered their trust monies on booze, and loose women, and pornography, and gambling, and devil worship, and illegal drugs, they would not be poor.
If they had been more prudent and used call girl services and used some really good prescribed medicines and gambled on hedge funds and feigned religiousity, they would not be in the fix their in.
November 28, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has there been a survey produced that finds out what we see as being a position of "well-being" or what we think is a life of basic comforts and responsibilities as an individual or family member? Like: how many hours should a household have to work for the basics? Should families be void of all responsibilities for financial independence of immediate family members from the ages of 18 until death?
I don't think we know who we are as Americans. What is the life of the American Dream? It isn't 40 acres and a mule. It isn't the 2 parent/2 kids/1 dog/1 car/1 job/.... model any more when $250,000 is not necessarily considered as privileged wealthy status. An honest measure of well-being, that "poverty" has lost in defense, and we have perverted by vice or disconnect, rightly seems likes the place to start. I know it has been a popular theme, this is the time for us to envision and embrace who we are as a Nation. 9-11 certainly brought us together, but like the rally of a family after a death, the following reflection and introspection might not have provided the expected or happy response. Post the Bush reactionary mourning period, we need to define and reposition our familial relationship. Unfortunately, like most family's ill-preparedness to deal with death, as a nation, we are untrained and lacking the societal that supports progressive liberalism.
November 28, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
To predict a backlash reaction to the term social inclusion, here are a few alternate suggestions. Since it is all about the sell-ability of the ideas and being able to define your beliefs with language with respect to your audience, using social raises the immediate caution flags and inclusion seems to be too passive of a word. It suggests that the larger/stronger group must accept the individual/weaker parts. It also does not include a sense of any work necessarily performed. Addressing those central American beliefs of: freedom isn't free, with hard work anyone can succeed, independent responsibility, etc - will counter misconceptions. The problem with "poverty" is that it deals with a "safety net," inferring a failure, and who is responsible for your own failures? You addressed where this type of reasoning gets us. If it is framed in terms of success, social inclusion becomes deserved and not something to be grateful of.
some quick ideas:
private/public service exchange
Citizen License of America
market valid expectation
American Ante-up Contract
valid citizen contract
Security of American Ability
November 28, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink