Poverty: Political Faux Pas?

“We joined together in a city that had been abandoned by our government and had been forgotten, but not by us. We knew that they still mourned the dead, that they were still stunned by the destruction, and that they wondered when all those cement steps in all those vacant lots would once again lead to a door, to a home, and to a dream.” John Edwards

Returning to New Orleans just 13 months after he announced his candidacy there, John Edwards suspended his campaign on Wednesday, January 30th. Apparently disappointed by the little focus on poverty during Democratic reactions to President Bush’s final State of the Union address, the Houston Chronicle reported that some close supporters of Edwards claimed that “he saw the New Orleans speech as a chance to refocus attention on the problem.”

Edwards began, without hesitation, by claiming that we “as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters.” He continued to say that “if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much,” we must do better. And by do better, Edwards means the creation of a one America—“one America where no child will go to bed hungry because we will finally end the moral shame of 37 million people living in poverty.” This, along with a laundry list of other hopes (universal health care, better public schools, a swift end to the war in Iraq, etc.), are certainly in line with Catholic Social Teaching’s focus on the preferential option for the poor (as well as human dignity, dignity of work, and others).

But, Edwards is out of the race. For all of his big ideas about poverty, it didn't get him very far. In his New Orleans speech, he used language like “brothers and sisters” and “neighbors in need” and “but for the grace of God;” but it seems as if this spiritual language fell flat in the grand scheme of things. His message didn't come close to having the emotional power and charisma of other political greats. Nor was it as controversial, somehow. And while we know that our vote must be based on more than just personality, rhetoric, and even charisma, we also recognize that to impact a crowd or a constituent, the speaker's (or preacher's) ability to deliver the words (or Word) is as important as his or her content.

So why is poverty not a larger issue in this election? Why is it not more prominently discussed in debates? Yes, we're hearing a lot about the economy and the potential recession lately, but who besides John Edwards has so consistently and diligently called us out on the “moral shame” of poverty? Perhaps it's because having a preferential option for the poor means not having a preferential option for one's self. Perhaps because a commitment to the most vulnerable—to an issue like ending poverty, or cutting it in half, as Catholic Charities USA is working towards by 2020 (see last week's RI Catholic for more details)—requires sacrifices. It requires the rest of us to let go of some of our economic power or to use our power and give of our time and skills to advocate for someone other than ourselves.

Juan Williams, as quoted earlier by Dr. Dillon, begs the question: “Are (political candidates) putting on cloaks of religious intention, rather than acting as truly religious people, who are willing to make sacrifices, willing to lose, in order to deliver the word?”

When Edwards states that he has the word of Senators Clinton and Obama that they will uphold the battle against poverty, what does that mean in terms of concrete change? I'll be interested to see how that pans out...