The USA has been the most powerful nation on earth for at least 80 years. As the only nation to exit WW2 with a booming economy and intact infrastructure, the USA became the world’s department store, economic engine and bank. The malaise of the depression was finally over, and the poverty rate in the country, which had soared in the 1930’s during the Great Depression, swiftly declined through the war years and into the 50’s and 60’s.
When Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964 as part of his Great Society legislative agenda, the poverty level was at about 19%. Many believed that the country could indeed ‘conquer’ poverty and render it obsolete. By the time Johnson left office in 1969, the poverty rate was about 12%. It has stubbornly remained between 12 and 15% ever since, through both republican and democratic presidencies and various permutations of congressional majority.
Conservatives and liberals have endlessly debated the surprising intractability of poverty in the world’s richest nation. The debate has become a predictable duet, albeit an atonal one without harmony or grace. Neither statistics nor data nor studies succeed in convincing the opposing sides to alter their religiously held convictions.
Here are what I perceive to be some of the opposing tenets of both the conservative and liberal points of view:
It is telling, and ironic, that the first bars of the poverty duet can be heard in the critique by both sides of the definition of poverty itself!
C: The number of citizens that live in true poverty is much less than the census bureau calculates because of food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicaid and other entitlements that are not considered in the poverty threshold. Is it poverty when 64% of people defined as impoverished have Internet and 78% have air conditioning?
L: The number of impoverished people is significantly higher than calculated because of the high costs of housing, healthcare and transportation as well as the debts that occur from unexpected events such as job loss, health crises or car repair, for example.
C: Poverty can only be reduced by economic growth and job production. Welfare programs are counter-productive and create dependencies and encourage poor behavior.
L: Trickle-down economics is a failure. Enlightened government efforts to provide aid, childcare subsidies and job-training/education, and lift wages are necessary to reduce poverty.
C: Wealth and income inequality concerns are attempts to create class warfare and envy. Further taxing the rich will have a negative effect on investment and economic growth.
L: Grotesque wealth inequality is not healthy. Income and estate taxes on the super wealthy can subsidize infrastructure improvements, education, childcare and other means to reduce poverty and improve outcomes for the poor. The rich will still have plenty of money to invest or build new companies.
C: Effort and ability determine success and economic status. There are no longer structural or systemic barriers making it more difficult for racial or ethnic groups to succeed.
L: The legacies of racism and bias against immigrants or non-whites are still present even if outright discriminatory practices have generally been eradicated. Federal, state and local governments must be proactive in removing these barriers.
C: Prior efforts to reduce poverty through welfare have encouraged single parent families and absent fathers with the resultant avalanche of crime, gangs, drugs and incarceration.
L: The disastrous tough-on-crime stances and war on drugs, with the resultant extreme levels of incarceration, have created a vicious cycle of addiction, incarceration, crime and unemployment.
C: A focus on racism, identity and historical flaws of the USA creates division and pessimism, and distracts people from the task of improving their lives and prospects through hard work and education.
L: America must confront its past in order to learn from it and correct the remaining structural inequities.
C: Any attempt to increase wages through mandatory minimum wage laws will harm businesses and end up causing increased unemployment and recessional pressure.
L: Minimum wage laws increase the spending power of the poor and will actually accelerate business growth (the Henry Ford example) rather than hamper it.
These are just a few of the verses, but the duet goes on and on. Poverty, like so much of the conservative/liberal divide, is a complex topic with plenty of room for interpretation of statistics and theorizing. There are some nations who have come close to creating a society with little or no poverty – the Scandinavian nations come to mind. But even in those somewhat homogeneous nations there is a significant portion (3-7%) of the population that is considered to be at a poverty level, though the definition of poverty in all nations is relative and hard to compare.
The world will never be perfect, and inherent in human nature are all sorts of troubling contradictions. There is likely a certain percentage of people whose habits and behavioral traits doom them to poverty and even homelessness. There is only so much one can do to improve their lives. However, a truly civilized society should be absolutely determined to provide all hard-working and earnest citizens with enough infrastructure (education, housing, childcare, healthcare, transportation, Internet) and safety nets (nutrition programs, temporary assistance during crisis, Medicaid, etc.) to create a dignified and fulfilling human existence.
This should be the part of the song where the duet rises to a harmonious chorus.
