Do you think it's impossible to end poverty? My experience with most other liberals is that it is widely believed that ending poverty isn't possible. I attribute this to three main causes. First, Americans tend to view poverty as a personal problem, as a problem with the poor person herself - rather than with the economic system. Second, many people tend to look backward in history when answering this question. Since poverty has existed throughout recorded history, it seems (so the logic goes) unlikely that it will ever be ended. Third, Americans are generally uncomfortable with discussions that involve class. We are much more comfortable (on relative terms) with issues of race and identity. And since race is already not an easy topic, class is near impossible to talk about. That results in there being few discussions about poverty outside of ways of "fixing" the poor or of providing some form of relief, as in charity.
Baltimore's poor organize to end poverty.
I think that is not only possible to end poverty, but that it is also a moral requirement for our nation to be considered just. Poverty is more than just morally wrong. It is also dangerous for democracy itself. The future of the American Republic, and of democracy in general, is at risk when poverty prevails. Because the end of poverty is of such great importance to our democracy, and because we have a moral obligation to confront poverty, we must figure out a way to make poverty history. We must make the ending of poverty possible, or we risk losing the soul of our nation.
When I say that ending poverty is possible, I am not talking about everyone having equal amounts of wealth. I don't define "lack of poverty" as "lack of income inequality." Rather, I define poverty as income insecurity and/or insufficient wealth to have the power to fully participate in a democratic society. Poverty is, according to this definition, either being a state of insecurity, of being in fear of losing one's capacity to meet basic needs on an ongoing and consistent basis. And poverty is also the lack of freedom, or of liberty, which comes when one has enough control over resources to make meaningful choices, including the resource of one's time and talents. By this definition, being poor is not always the same thing as being in poverty. For example, Social Security Insurance, Medicare and Senior Housing programs may not make an elder citizen (or disabled citizen) wealthy, but do provide income security (you know that the next check will come) and provides access to health care, housing and enough resources for leisure time and a healthy diet.
While I believe that ending poverty is possible, I don't know how we will do it. Not only is it premature to be figuring out how to achieve the goal, since so few Americans have made such a goal a priority, but it will take more than the opinion of someone like myself (with training in education and public relations). Ending poverty is possible, but that doesn't make it a simple matter to do. First, there are many things that would need to happen, from improving educational access, to providing better treatment to drug addiction, to improving law enforcement practices, to changing labor law, to providing universal health coverage, to ending racial barriers, to providing income security to those in need. The goal of ending poverty will need to be carried out by economists, labor leaders, business people, clergy, psychologists, medical providers, educators, social workers and citizen's groups. Moreover, in our global economy, ending poverty in America requires that poverty be addressed beyond our borders.
And while I don't know how to end poverty, I do think that I know the one thing that must come first: A poor people's movement to end poverty. Why a poor people's movement? Because without the poor themselves involved at the forefront, as leaders, of such a movement we are bound to repeat past attempts at ending poverty. Without a movement led by the poor themselves, we risk, once again, ending up with a movement that results in either a new class of poverty profiteers, with a shallow movement that is will not be sustained for the required decades, or with an anti-democratic movement that results in some form of fascism under the guise of ending poverty. And let me clear, when I say "leaders" I don't just mean people at the front of the march. The kind of leaders who would be required for there to be a poor people's movement capable of ending poverty would be deeply committed to the principles of democracy, non-violence and justice. Such leaders could not be co-opted, bought off, tricked off the path and would be both skilled and prepared for a decades-long movement.
I believe that it is possible to end poverty. And I believe that it is possible for they're to be a poor people's movement capable of ending poverty. I believe that the political, moral and economic forces that make poverty can be reversed. But this will only be possible when others join those of us who believe that poverty can, and should, be ended. And then it is, according to my analysis of how things have failed in the past, only possible when there are tens of thousands of committed leaders working towards such a goal, with most from the ranks of the poor themselves.
Disclosure: I work for the UWA, which is a poor people's human rights organization based in Baltimore, MD. The UWA's goal is to help bring an end to poverty by organizing Maryland's low-wage workers.
UWA's website