Paradigms of poverty 4

When I read this bit of George Will's recent column --

The 1930s paradigm [of poverty] has been refuted by four decades of experience. The new paradigm is of behavior-driven poverty that results from individuals' nonmaterial deficits. It results from a scarcity of certain habits and mores -- punctuality, hygiene, industriousness, deferral of gratification, etc. -- that are not developed in disorganized homes.

-- I had to choke back a little vomit. And then I started composing an appropriately caustic, dismissive post in my head.

As Kevin Drum too-gently points out, the notion that the poor are poor because they're lazy and shiftless is hardly a new paradigm. It's very, very old.

But rather than heaping scorn on Will's head, I just refer you to Ezra Klein's substantive dismantling of the claim -- and, while you're at it, Klein's longer piece on poverty.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. elcomputo Posted 5:25 pm
    07 Mar 2006

    PovertyI think one thing that academic researchers and journalists should be looking into is the question of why the poor is the one group of citizens least likely to register and vote.
    Certainly, they have just as much of a personal stake as our more wealthy citizens in voting on directions the nation should be taking. Yet, the poor don't vote, and the rich do.
    (Oddly enough, the rich overwhelmingly vote Republican, which means they do not vote their own long-term self-interest. To their benefit would be policies that also benefit the poor -- policies which would provide opportunities for all Americans to improve their lot. This would increase the standard of living throughout the nation and build the gross national product. Instead, the rich vote for candidates and programs that create and increase disparities in immediate income, making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and creating eventual, inevitable economic disaster for all, themselves included.)
    Why don't the poor vote? There are any number of theories.
    George Will and other conservatives might say the poor are simply too disorganized and ignorant. There may be some truth in that, given that American public schools throughout the nation are deficient, and the most deficient can be found in poor communities. No student these days gets much instruction in civics and citizenship.
    Others would say the poor have had their expectations dashed so many times in the past by politicians promising them a lot and delivering nothing. They may feel there is no point in voting. (In fact, this might extend to most liberals of any class these days, since those politicians promising a progressive agenda seem increasingly to be an endangered species.)
    A simple fact turned up in a recent survey is that a lot of people simply don't know where to go to register or to vote. I know from experience that polling places can be changed from election to election, and voters don't always get notified. And given the rate of illiteracy in the USA, many people may not vote because they can't read a ballot. Here are another couple of possible determinants for non-voting behavior.
    Whatever the cause... Well, that's just my point: we really don't know the cause -- or causes. And how can we ever change the direction our nation is taking if we cannot get more than 4 people in 10 to go to the polls (less in non-presidential elections)?
    Until progressives can educate and move the poor and working classes into going to the polls and voting for progressive candidates and issues, we cannot have a dialogue on the national direction. Before we do anything else, we must know why that potential voter has NOT been going to the polls.
  2. bookerly Posted 12:34 pm
    08 Mar 2006

    Born Poor

       Most people in the world are poor because they are born poor.  Lacking a systematic society-wide commitment to ending poverty, most people in the world keep the social status they were born with.  Despite the claims of an open society with a level playing field, most Americans live in the same relative social class they were born into.  Of course, what that means may change over time.  (White blue collar workers did relatively well with the rise of labor unions, as they weaken, their gains are being eroded).
       
  3. atreyger Posted 2:19 am
    09 Mar 2006

    born poor?While the majority of the rich are born rich (and I'm talking superrich), not all are. Bill Gates is one, and there are plenty of others who have a great idea and an entrepreneurial 'cut-throat' spirit. When someone wants money, as long as they can figure out a legal way to make it (or an illegal way and get away with it), they will do it. I also remember that saying: 'behind every great fortune lies a great crime'. Which leads me to consider that the majority of rich have commited a crime in some way (staying within the law does not make something any less of a crime: systematic genocide of Indians or Jews during the Holocaust comes to mind). Kind of a sensationalist strawman example, but I can probably think of better ones.
  4. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 1:52 pm
    09 Mar 2006

    George Willhas worked hard his whole life to increase his vocabulary to the point it has become a parody of verbosity. It makes him look much smarter than he actually is.
    Also, Bookerly is right.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement