Poverty: The Election Issue That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/21-4


Soon after LBJ became president, an ally warned him not to squander his political capital on worthy but hopeless causes, such as civil rights and poverty. Johnson's reply was: "Well, what the hell's the presidency for?"

A presidential election campaign approaches its climax, as Barack Obama and Mitt Romney criss-cross the land in search of the last few votes. But my thoughts have turned to a couple of candidates from long ago, who have been back in the news these past few days.


One is George McGovern, best known for his landslide defeat at the hands of Richard Nixon 40 years ago and who, his family has announced, died this morning in a hospice in his native South Dakota. The other is Robert Kennedy, indirect subject of a new documentary on HBO devoted to his widow Ethel, among the last living contemporary links to Camelot.

The program wasn't particularly good – too much family frolicking, too little about the Kennedy tragedies, The New York Times's reviewer complained. "All this introspection, I hate it," says Ethel, now 84, at one point. But it was a reminder of what the country lost with the assassination of RFK, whose short-lived candidacy in 1968 remains one of the great "what ifs" of 20th-century American history: how different things might have been if he had gone on to defeat Nixon at that year's election.

But the mere names of Bobby Kennedy and George McGovern get you thinking: whatever happened to the old-fashioned American liberalism under whose banner they so proudly fought? Not today's diluted "liberalism" as practiced by Obama, and which is little more than a schoolyard taunt hurled by right-wing talk-show hosts, but the liberalism that set out to right the wrongs of American society, first and foremost the scourge of poverty.

[BridgeTheGap]

1. whatever happened to the old-fashioned American liberalism...?

It has fallen prey to the rightward push started in the 70s. For a few decades, there was never an organized, sufficient response to what the right was doing in this country. The Democratic party at the federal level seemed to be content with adapting to the rightward drift. The democratic constituency has stuck with the party thus far, for lack of any other viable option. Then there are those in the middle, who could go either way.
The book "What's The Matter with Kansas" was spot on with what was taking place (and still is, for that matter).
Now that the right has moved into the "idiot zone", one would think the choice would be patently obvious. Instead, here we are, once again, in a tight race between President Barack Obama, a decidedly establishment candidate with progressive leanings, against the "idiot zone's" choice, Mittens RMONEY.
The balance of power is totally out of whack, unless, of course, you're part of the 1 - 2 % who've benefited mightily from the economic policies of the last 20-30 years. And they funded the think tanks and rw media outlets to get them exactly where they are.

[Myrina]

2. It chafes my ass everytime I hear

"Let's grow the economy from the middle out."

What the hell ever happened to the LARGE portion of the voting population that lives in statistical & real poverty, Mr. President? Those folks you organized for? Don't they/we count anymore?