Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
IT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT POVERTY... Garance makes some interesting observations in her piece about John Edwards and low-income voters, but I have to say, I doubt Edwards is banking on a huge groundswell of support for his candidacy from poor Americans. That's not really the political point of his emphasis on poverty.
Before we get to why, let me say emphatically that I don't doubt for a second Edwards' sincerity on this issue. It's plain that he cares about it deeply, and that's why he's spending so much time talking about it. At the same time, though, he is running for president, so he has obviously thought about the politics involved. So if he isn't looking for the votes of lower-income Americans, what's the calculation?
To understand, we can revisit something Mark Schmitt wrote back in 2004, in an all-time classic post:
If I were running the issues department of the Kerry campaign, or any campaign, the sign above my desk would not be James Carville's "It's the Economy Stupid": my sign would say, "It's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you." That is, as a candidate, you must choose to emphasize issues not because they poll well or are objectively our biggest problems, but because they best show the kind of person you are, and not just how you would deal with that particular issue, but others yet to rear their heads. The best illustration of that is John McCain. The most admired political figure achieved his status in large part by his crusade for campaign finance reform. I've seen all the polls on this for seven or eight years, and "campaign finance reform," as an issue, is of interest to at most 5% of the public. I'd like for it to be otherwise, but it's not. And yet, for McCain, campaign finance reform is the perfect issue. It's tells a story about his independence, and his persistence, and it gives him a populist message without having to embrace more liberal economic policies. Clinton's much-derided "micro-initiatives" of the mid-1990s likewise sent a message about who he was: responsible, not extreme, neither a lover of government for its own sake nor a nihilist like Newt Gingrich. The insignificance of his gestures was a potent message in itself, and saved his presidency.
Poverty functions in the same way for Edwards (or at least it should). The political effect is that it tells people something about who Edwards is: that he cares about people who are suffering, that he hasn't forgotten the modest circumstances from which he came, and that he has the courage to tackle big, seemingly intractable problems.
Of course, it's awfully difficult to tell that story about yourself when every time you talk about the issue, reporters can only write about what a hypocrite and a phony you are for wanting to do something about poverty when you yourself are not actually poor. Have you heard that John Edwards has gotten expensive haircuts? Well, they'll make sure to remind you.
--Paul Waldman
COMMENTS (7)
With all due respect to Garance, there's something more than a little unseemly about a woman who grew up splitting her time between two continents, then graduated from the most expensive college in America, writing an article about what America's poor want. Other writers see the need to actually speak to -- oh, I don't know, low-income voters? -- in order to come to these conclusions. She, on the other hand, apparently sees no reason to.
This, for instance, is offensive nonsense. Did Garance actually speak to anyone with an income under $60,000 in order to come to this conclusion? There's no evidence that she did; no sources in her article other than pundits clambering over each others' shoulders in order to speak most accurately for the poor, who, lacking mouths (poor dears), can apparently not put a voice to the reason they are not voting for Edwards.
-- ACS
Posted by: ACS | July 17, 2007 5:37 PM
I just spent the week in WV, at a New Deal town literally created out of nothing by Eleanor Roosevelt. People throughout the state LOVE Edwards -- they feel he speaks their language.
The are, however, concerned that he can actually win.
But what would West Virginians know about poverty and government programs?
Posted by: geml | July 17, 2007 8:02 PM
Hey, I just thought I'd add a bit of audio excitment to your political blog! I heard a great song the other day that was just released about the upcoming elections. It's painfully honest about things such as religion, gender, race, past leaders and news reporters. I am sure you will enjoy it, you can listen at www.ericproffitt.com
happy listening!
Posted by: musicgirl | July 18, 2007 12:40 AM
ACS, i don't cotton to your attacks on Garance's background - but you're right on the money about the importance of reaching out & talking to actual people on the fringes of society, rather than just talking about them. That's precisely what i think Edwards deserves tons of credit for, and which all the coverage i've seen just misses completely. On NPR yesterday they were talking about how small the crowds are at his stops along the way, as if they're supposed to be like traditional campaign stops. The point of the exercise is to put the focus on the people he's talking to & their reality, not the campaign; to get the press to actually talk about poverty rather than what Edwards' strategy is or whether it will work. (Let alone the ridiculous shit like whether this trip will be able to defuse the haircut incident - asked and answered, anybody?)
The contrast to the coverage of RFK's southern poverty trip - where the media came along because RFK was there, but discovered the human dimension of the problem right alongside him - is striking. How do you pierce the veil of cynicism & superficiality that has so completely evenloped campaign beat reporters?
Posted by: TW | July 18, 2007 3:48 AM
How was that an attack on her background? All the poster was doing was pointing out that her assertions about what America's poor want is based on . . . nothing.
It would be nice if the TAP crew could at least try to do better than the Goopers when it comes to viewing real people as real people, and not just mathematical entities in their political calculus.
Posted by: CJR | July 18, 2007 8:57 AM
I think saying that Garance can't write about the issues of the poor is like saying Edwards can't campaign on those issues--why should you have to have lived in a situation like that as a qualifier for discussing it?
I think it's simpler. Garance is a Hillary fan and was looking for a way to take down her preferred candidate's opponent. I didn't like the piece either, and blogged about it thusly:
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/edwards-gets-hate-from-the-right-and-left/
Posted by: Martin | July 18, 2007 10:49 AM
The article, whether it was intended to shill for Hillary Clinton (and I don't think it was) was part of a genre I find truly awful: "Why Programs Designed to Benefit the Class I Belong (and not programs designed to benefit the poor) to Will Actually Benefit the Poor!"
-- ACS
Posted by: ACS | July 18, 2007 12:11 PM