Reply to Wallis (God'sPolitics) Why Poverty IS Exclusively a Liberal Issue

[NAO]

A Reply to Jim Wallis
Why Poverty is Exclusively a Liberal/Left-wing Issue

In "God's Politics" Wallis argues that poverty is not a simple liberal vs. conservative issue. He states, "as long as poverty is seen as merely a 'left-wing' issue, we will never succeed." Further, he suggests that "it will take the best values and efforts from both conservatives and liberals if we are really going to make a difference in people's lives". Wallis thus argues that poverty transcends the factions of the political debate and that both sides have contributions to make to the development of solutions to poverty.

I would suggest that these statements do not accurately reflect realities of the political arena in contemporary America. I would assert that poverty is truly an exclusively liberal, left-wing issue. I am not suggesting that liberals the answers to the problem of poverty. But I am suggesting that any work on the problem of poverty will come exclusively from liberals and those on the left.

Conservatives and those on the right are fundamentally, ideologically opposed to the notion that poverty is a legitimate issue for governments. They do not believe that it is right or proper in any sense for the state to take an active role in combating poverty. It is not that liberals and conservatives differ in what types of solutions they propose to deal with poverty. Conservatives do not offer solutions, nor do they believe that it is their place to do so.

Conservatives are in fact actively working against the notion that government should address the poverty issue in any capacity. This is being done both on a practical and on an ideological level. At the practical level, they are systematically working to under fund, undermine, and terminate individual social programs. At the ideological level, they are working to advance the notion that the government has no business whatsoever being involved in attempts to ameliorate poverty. They are working to propagate the notion that any sort of economic interventionism (for individuals, that is, not for corporations) amounts to Marxism.

This notion - that it is not a legitimate role of government to address the issue of poverty - is not a secondary issue or merely a stance of extremists. Rather, it is a fundamental notion of conservatives and a defining characteristic of right-wing ideas. It is both explicit stated in the writings of right-wing thinkers and is an implicitly held belief of people who call themselves "conservatives".

George W. Bush played both sides of the issue, and managed to (inadvertently) state the conservative position on poverty with perfect clarity. Bush put forth the notion of "compassionate conservatism".

Compassionate Conservativism, when taken out of the realm of rhetoric and when the underlying notions are made explicit, amounts to saying, "I do care about the poor, and I think they should be helped, (the compassionate part) but I don't think it's the government’s role to help them nor should the government address the issues of poverty (the conservative part). Addressing poverty should be left to private individuals, charities, and faith based groups. That is who should be dealing with poverty."

This notion that "it's not the government's job" is a deeply held tenant among both the right-wing ivory tower think tankers and among the ordinary everyday people who call themselves conservatives or right-wingers.

Until people accept that it is the legitimate and necessary role of government to provide opportunity and to provide a safety net, there can be no dialogue or cooperation on solutions to the problem of poverty. And that is where I believe Wallis is mistaken when he says that poverty is not a liberal issue and that solutions will have to take the best from both conservatives and liberals.

[Melodybe]

1. I love Wallis, he is a christian that has actually read the bible

He makes some interesting points.

I am debating to buy his book, not that I don't want to read it only that I lack the deniro to do so.

[Eye_on_prize]

2. you make many good points, however..

in fairness to Wallis, I think what he means is that Libs may be able to enlist some Cons/Repubs to support anti-poverty measures that truly focus on self-sufficiency and free-enterprise. An example of how this has worked successfully is the Community Development Corporation (CDC) model, pioneered by Robt. F. Kennedy in Bedford Stiversen area of NY. There Kennedy got bankers, civis rights activists, construction industry and local government to form non-profit corporations aimed at 'doing development as though people and neighborhoods really matter'.

CDC's have actually been quite successful, esp. in building and managing affordable housing and revitalizing some inner city commercial areas. Under this model, it is typical for libs and cons to work together and pool their resources and energy to do good things.. Anyway, i think this is the approach Wallis is calling for. He probably is pissing in the wind though, as few Bushies are remotely interested in addressing poverty issues.

However, this approach could be a very effective Democratic platform on fighting poverty, since it has the built-in appeal to the private sector involvement and encouraging self-sufficiency of poor people. I hope Wallis and Dean and others interested make this happen.

[MountainLaurel]

4. CDCs are a great idea

Except that I think Bush is cutting out much of the funding for the federal programs (Community Development Block Grants and ECEZ (can't remember what that one stands for)) that supports such efforts.

[pbg]

3. There are three general types of conservatives

1) The Christian fundamentalist conservatives, who have no excuse. Jesus Christ said explicitly to help the poor--that this is the thing that will determine your fate at the final judgment.

2) The patrimony conservatives, who believe (with varying degrees of consistency and sincerity) that the function of government is to preserve their rights to property and wealth. The more thoughtful can be convinced that the more prosperous the WHOLE society is, the more actual wealth is generated for the rich. In an economy where consumer spending is the major engine of prosperity, this has considerable weight.

3) the Ayn Rand/laissez-faire loonies. They argue pragmatic matters from their own first principles. If you ask them WHY it isn't the function of government to help the poor, they cite theories of government that have never been put into practice, but they think are 'right'--often from a crippled misunderstanding of Charles Darwin or Adam Smith, or reading Atlas Shrugged over and over. There ain't no country of Aynrandistan, and if there was, it wouldn't last three years. These people are hopeless: they're simply 'four legs good, two legs bad."

[NAO]

6. Why Would ANY Christian be Conservative at all?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1581902

[tavalon]

7. A small correction

1) The Christian fundamentalist conservatives, who have no excuse. Jesus Christ said explicitly to help the poor--that this is the thing that will determine your fate at the final judgment.


Actually, many if not most fundamentalist "Christians" believe they have been born again and that they will go to heaven no matter what they do. They ignore any bible teachings that suggest that a Christian will be judged by his actions.

Pretty fucked up little philosophy, eh?

[Patchuli]

8. That is a very f'd up philosophy

and couldn't be more wrong.

I am a born again Christian; however, that does NOT guarantee my passage into heaven if I do not live the way Christ told me! I don't know where these people think they have a freebie pass. You do more than do the talk, you do the walk or suffer the consequences. I could 'go to hell' just as easily as any non-Christian if my deeds on earth suck. Believe me, the neo-cons are no 'Christians' and I'm pretty damn sure that heaven will not be their final destination...!

God doesn't like ugly, no matter what crap ugly spouts.

[tavalon]

11. It's nice to know that not all the born againers

believe that little one. The Southern Baptist church I was raised in did and I asked questions that they didn't like. It took me until I was twenty to decide that "you just have to have faith" wasn't an acceptable answer. I found another religion that more fit with what felt right to me.

And frankly, after seeing what passes for born again in the ensuing 20 years, I've been wanting to know if I can turn in my born again passcard. I don't really want to hang out in Heaven with Jerry Falwell and his ilk. Even getting to hang out with Jesus doesn't seem to be enough if it means having to be around the others. (Just kidding on that one - getting to hang out with Jesus would be the ultimate and I'm a Wiccan. That fella rocks!)

[Patchuli]

12. Oh no, my pastor says to us

if we don't do what is expected of us, all they hymn singing and church attendance won't help us. We are expected to live as Christ did, reaching out to others in need and giving of ourselves if we expect the final reward. Someone who merely goes to church, pays tithes and smugly considers themselves to be better if they obey man's laws does not necessarily have a cushy spot in the afterlife reserved. Picking other people apart because of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. is NOT on the Instructions for Life we are given. That is the one thing that blows my mind repeatedly! Where do these smug assholes get off thinking they are better than other people?!!! I can't believe how they pick and choose which Scripture to follow and which to ignore at their convenience!

I have a hard time believing that Falwell, etc. are going to be honored residents of the Afterlife. Maybe God has his own special purgatory for such hypocrites? Maybe Falwell will be janitor or some lowly occupation in Heaven for putting his snarky butt above others on Earth? heheeee :P

As for the religion I grew up with? Catholic, ugh!! Of course, they told US that WE were the only true believers and everyone else would go to hell for being non-Catholic! I saw through that crapola by the age of 12 when after my confirmation, I was allowed to decide which path of faith I would or would not follow. I never looked back at the "The Holy Mother Church!" I could smell hypocrite by 12!

[daydreamer]

5. Its part of the GOP grand design

so poor people can fight their war. In other countries where they have universal health care and free education, they have a universal draft. If we don't pay our soldiers well and give them benefits other young people don't have, the slogans of patriotism can only enlist few.

[Pooka Fey]

9. The funny thing is they have no problem with gov't helping corporations

Corporations have tax shelters, cities compete to give businesses huge tax breaks/incentitives to locate in their areas; government subsidizes big cattle, big timber, and factory farming; NAFTA was enacted by the government to make it easier for corporations to outsource American jobs so that business exec's and owners could get cheaper labor and pocket the difference; city taxpayers are tapped to pay for football and baseball stadiums which are the property of private corporation's; etc. etc. etc.

The only entity the right doesn't want the government to help is the regular Joe and Jane. :eyes:

[Igel]

14. The church I was in had no poor people;

it had a fund for helping them--paying rent, fixing leaking roofs, routinely paying their phone and utility bills, replacing appliances. Who got how much was known to one minister and the bookkeeper, nobody else.

Moreover, excess went through a non-member community activist who checked out people that were about to be evicted or had no money for food. She made sure they were seeking work, that when they said they needed $400 for rent that they really did and gave the money directly to the landlord.

They did their best to practice what they preached. And they were of a fundamentalist stripe that would probably shock most people here.

[Selwynn]

10. That's ridiculous.

I know more than a couple people who fight to care for the poor who are politically conservative. You're generalization of conservatives is overly broad, and not in touch with the reality of variations in the kinds of conservatism out there.

I talk with conservatives many times who are not all-or-nothing thinkers. They think government should be "smaller" but the concede that the government must do certain things - like find ways to deal with the crisis of poverty in America.

Just because we may sometimes disagree about how best to do that does not mean you can reasonable say something like "all" conservatives think this or "no" conservatives do that.

[NAO]

13. Some cons want to help the poor, but not thru government policy

Despite some conservatives who care about poverty, the main thrust of what I was trying to say is still valid.

Conservatives are ideologically opposed to the notion that government should have a role in addressing poverty.

This does not exclude individual conservatives, or even conservative organizations from working on poverty issues. What it does mean is that if some conservatives want to address the problem of poverty, they want to do it by means OTHER than thru government policy.

Wallis argues that is is completely obvious that if we are going to make any headway in fighting poverty, it will require government policy and government efforts. My point is that while some conservatives are concerned about poverty, and while some are willing to take action against poverty, the conservative ideology prohibits them from directing government policy and funding government programs aimed at poverty.

And as I said, this attitude is a deeply entrenched fundamental tenant of conservatism. It is explicitly stated in the policy papers produced by the conservative think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the CATO Institute. It is implicitly held by the general masses of self-identified conservative voters as a core conservative value.

The conservative role in fighting poverty is to get government out of that role, and from that generally agreed upon starting point, conservatives vary widely in their degree of compassion and activism.

[Selwynn]

15. Yes, actually through government policy

Conservatives are ideologically opposed to the notion that government should have a role in addressing poverty.


NO, actual conservatives oppose the notion of governments running the wrong programs in the wrong ways doing LESS to actually meet the real needs of poor and working class American than should be done. It doesn't have to be about screwing poor people and guess what, out there in American - it frequently isn't. I know several Republican and independent Conservatives personally who believe strongly that the government has a responsibility to the poor and a responsibility in addressing poverty. There is just disagreement about what the most effective way to do that actually is.

By the way, you're original point was that poverty is a "left-wing" issue. But then you say here that it is a conservative issue too, they just differ in their beliefs about how it should best be handled... so I guess that's basically the opposite of the point you started with.

By the way, a much, much more common conservative view is not that government should not be involved in the issue of poverty at all, but rather than the federal government is not more effective than state and local government in dealing with the varying and diverse context of local needs.

Of course there is an evil ugly neo-conservative and radical right wing power in Washington politics that I don't believe gives a remote damn about poverty and I'm not denying that. But I don't agree with your premise that poverty is a left-wing only issue. In fact, I agree with Jim far more than you in this case.

[GOPBasher]

16. I agree with you, because

conservatives generally, as you said, only think that voluntary charity should go toward helping the poor; the government shouldn't have anything to do with it, as you said. We liberals generally believe it's a function of government to help the poor; conservatives generally don't.

[GraysonDave]

17. Poverty itself is not a Liberal issue

Addressing poverty through government programs is a Liberal issue. I attend a pretty fundamentalist church and I assure you that we're very aggressive in addressing poverty in our community and elsewhere.

I'm guessing that most of my fellow church members are politically conservative, but that doesn't mean they want to bury their heads in the sand over poverty. I believe most of them would rather send less money to Washington so that they could direct it to where they feel it is needed most. If I'm right about their veiwpoints, I can't really fault them.