Don’t Exclude Poverty from Inclusion

Words matter. And so do frameworks. That’s the point of the Inclusionist and the recent paper Social Inclusion for the United States. You don’t have to be a fan of George Lakoff’s to appreciate that facts don’t speak for themselves. So, the progressive community should welcome a “conversation” regarding how best to communicate national issues related to social ills. At CLASP, we published a paper Targeting Poverty:  Aim at A Bull’s Eye that the Inclusionist evidently believes provides misguided language and strategy.

There is a substantive question about which words work better or best at developing political will; should our discourse be about disparity, mobility, insecurity, inclusion, exclusion, security, opportunity,  other. A lot of us throughout the progressive community are trying to find solutions to these common good issues and trying to find words that develop broad political will around them.   

In a country as large as ours it’s reasonable to expect different responses to the same word. For some “poverty” is not toxic but instead provides purpose. For example, many in the faith community believe “poverty” is a central mission. The recent Catholic Charities USA Campaign to Reduce Poverty underscores this. And, let’s not forget that to gain political will there needs to be an energized political base that can actually build that political will.  Other campaigns have included poverty as a part of campaigns; for example, New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s Commission on Economic Opportunity includes poverty throughout its materials and mission and the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Task Force on Poverty, Work and Opportunity includes a smorgasbord of words in its effort to address social issues.

But is “social inclusion” better language than “poverty”? Right now it is reasonable to assume that Americans, if asked the definition of ‘social inclusion’ might respond -- social what? Or ask what inclusion? That does not mean that ultimately it isn’t a useful framework, it just might mean that it may take a good long while to make the frame work. 

How should we act while we debate a frame work (or decide that maybe more than one is needed)?   The Social Inclusion paper thinks that setting a poverty target is a mistake and states:

“Taking note of recent efforts in the United Kingdom and other countries to meet poverty-reduction goals, some advocates and policy makers in the United States have proposed   adopting a goal to reduce poverty as it is understood and measured in the United States. In our view, adopting such a goal would not be part of an effective strategy to improve living standards in the United States.”

Social Inclusion argues that the official measure of poverty is inadequate. Not an argument. Agreed.  Since 1995 the National Academy of Sciences has said it. But in the dozen years since, no official change has moved the bar up.  Yet, succeeding at eliminating poverty would mean that, today, 37 million among us would not be as poor.  Not a bad start, and not chopped liver. 

With a successful poverty target, living standards would be improved but not nearly enough. Agreed. A person made unpoor but left without health care should never be our full aspiration. 37 million lifted out of poverty but joining many more in a struggle to live pay check pay check should never be our full aspiration. Agreed. 

But can we set a poverty target (a time line with a numerical goal) and accomplish something now while striving for more? 

Definitely. Connecticut has a legislated target – to halve child poverty by 2014. The state Commissioner who first inherited the poverty target is a big fan for three reasons, including one commonly cited in the U.K:  it helps give disparate government agencies a clear and common focus. The words of (former) Commissioner Patricia Wilson Coker are unequivocal,

“Targets force you to stop talking about things and really put some thought into how you're going to solve the problem. And my top three issues, I would say, are accountability, building partnerships at the state and local level, and turning from crisis management to planning. [2/6/07]”

Building political will means building bridges.  Yet, the press release drawing attention to the report Social Inclusion for the United States distinguishes it from other groups working on the same issues and notes, “This week the Center for American Progress joins Presidential candidate John Edwards and others in calling for a national goal to cut poverty by a specific amount” and then moves on to describe why such national goal is essentially misguided.  In short, Inclusionist views a poverty goal as something to exclude.  To build a movement requires aggressive inclusion, it should not be about press releases that point fingers and say some are on the outside while others are in. 

Isn’t it ironic?