| So, as you may know, David Mizner decided to misrepresent my diary on Edwards's "Poverty Platform" for lord knows what reason. His post was followed by approximately 400 comments which nicely excorciate me for a post that (judging from our sitemeter stats) none of them actually bothered to read.
But who knows: perhaps people will actually decide to read my diary, or perhaps Mizner will return and attempt to understand it. Since he and the bulk of his followers appear to be interpretation challenged, I offer the following gloss.
Here's how my original diary starts:
So it's been several weeks since Edwards's "poverty tour", and perhaps it's time to ask why his signature issue seems unable to get traction.
For all intents and purposes this is a topic sentence. It's a little artsy, I know. It doesn't lay it out 7th grade style. But it does announce the topic: Edwards's "poverty platform" rhetoric seems to not be getting traction, at least if his numbers are any guide. The diary will discuss why that might be so.
You all following me so far? The purpose of the diary is to discuss why the rhetoric of "poverty" is not serving Edwards better.
I continue:
I can't speak for the the areas where Edwards has toured, but I can take some guesses regarding the lack of traction in New Hampshire, where 10% of children live below the poverty line.
Further refinement: I'm limiting myself to the more local situation. And I'm asserting that locally one would think the poverty rhetoric would be more resonant, given the poverty numbers in this state.
Now watch this:
The problem here is that putting the myriad of problems associated with poverty under a "poverty platform" makes them less relevant to people's lives.
Anyone know what that is? Anyone?
Bueller?
It's called a thesis statement. It's classic, and so obvious I almost eliminated it from the diary at first.
But here's a trick David: next time you want to "critique" my diary, quote my damn thesis statement.
The rest of the diary is pretty simple. I tell a personal anecdote of someone who is very poor due largely to a medical condition. And I mention she doesn't think of herself as poor, or as having a poverty problem. She's interested in better health care, a better social safety net, increased wages.
Then I mention the wide middle class and how their realtionship to poverty more recently is that they are frightened they will fall into it. They've seen what a layoff or medical condition can do. Given that, the middle class is interested in hearing about better health care, a better social safety net, increased wages.
Still with me, David? Did you notice that's the same set of things? I'm sorry I wasn't clear before.
So now we approach an answer to the initial question, and an elucidation of the thesis: the issue does not have traction with the poor, because they don't think they are poor. And that to my mind is not a problem. They want to be spoken to like the middle class -- a population that politicians speak to with respect.
And the middle class would love to be spoken to like -- well, the middle class. They're nervous that their stability is in jeopardy.
And then I explicitly mention I think much of Edwards's policy is good, but I think using the "Poverty Platform" as an umbrella over it (and re-enacting RFK's tour) is a distraction from how America as a whole could benefit from many of these policies on, wait for it, better health care, a better social safety net, increased wages.
As you can see, it was a total hit piece on Edwards.
Anyway, I hope this helped. I'd respond to your criticisms in your post, but I'm pretty sure after reading this gloss, you'll be embarrassed and issue a full retraction, so I'll just wait for that instead.
Oh, and although this diary was pretty simple, I actually have a bunch of more jumbled thoughts I'm hashing out about the relationship of modern poverty to the dissapearance of the Commons and the rise of consumer culture. Heavy stuff; I'm guessing beyond your ken. Might want to steer clear of here for a while, no? |
