This was an interesting article that came up in my newsfeed this morning. It discusses poverty and how American society has viewed and attempted to deal with the problem over the past half a century, yet making little progress. The author of the book mentioned in the article, Matthew Desmond, takes a different approach and makes some compelling arguments that we've been doing it all wrong for all these decades. While conservatives argue that the reason for poverty has to do with the behavior of the poor ("dependency and idleness, exacerbated, they believe, by the receipt of government handouts"), liberals argue the issue is structural ("racism and deindustrialization, which, they contend, have entrenched inequality and prevented disadvantaged groups from sharing in the nation’s prosperity").
But what if both of these approaches are incorrect?
The article is quite illuminating and illustrates many of the problems in America I've noticed over the past few decades as well.
Here's an interesting statistic:
Desmond stated that, despite how he might sound, he's not a Marxist, but notes that Leo Tolstoy's writings were a major influence.
The treatment of homeless people, particularly in affluent, liberal cities like LA, SF, NY, is extremely damning.
The deindustrialization of America is also a major factor in the severe decline in the standard of living. As Desmond points out, the problem today has gotten so bad that the country may not be economically strong enough to help the poor.
This is another point which is true. During the 1960s, when LBJ launched the War on Poverty, it was "in an age of prosperity, when many believed the economy was strong enough to lift all boats." But now, everything has gone to crap, thanks the culture of gross mismanagement, myopic recklessness, outright malice, and gross exploitation which characterized Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and every Administration ever since.
As a result, the country is in worse shape today. Now, we were ill-equipped to deal with this problem through standard liberal-supported social programs, and more radical measures may be needed to get the country back on track to where it should be.
In this part, the author notes one of the key reasons why tax loopholes are never closed and why even the simplest proposals to reduce the misery of the poor fall on deaf ears. It would mean that the well-off might have to give up their own advantages, and this does not suit them. This is exactly what the problem has been all these years, and I've observed the same attitude myself, among both liberals and conservatives.
This is the main part of the reason why many people view liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, as being "the same" even as pompous, affluent, privileged liberals stomp their little feet and scream "false equivalence" all the time.
This is why, to me, all other issues pale in importance. What we're seeing now is the long-term consequences of decades of criminal negligence, and all of the problems which many are bringing up today, such as the supposed "threat to democracy" and the rise of hate and intolerance, all emanate from the wanton failures of our political system and those who hold stewardship over it.
It's not just about giveaway programs or free stuff (since the wealthy have gotten the lion's share of that anyway), but it's about rebuilding and restructuring our economy to be productive again.
