(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)
One of the most important points Al Gore makes about global warming in An Inconvenient Truth is that it is not a political issue; it is a moral issue. To me, this is one of the most important concepts with regards to the Democratic Party that we should employ more often: moral values aren’t just what the Republican Party says they are – after all, they aren’t very good at following their own rules – but that they encompass every aspect of our life. A moral issue that we need to address more, especially in light of what has happened since Hurricane Katrina, is poverty. It’s an issue that the Bible has to speak about, but sadly, it’s something that often gets ignored for whatever reason. Even though the GOP-controlled Senate blocked a minimum wage increase, there’s one person who continues the crusade to raise the minimum wage and to combat poverty in America: former senator and vice presidential nominee John Edwards.
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, a potential 2008 Democratic residential candidate, told supporters of a ballot issue to increase the state’s minimum wage that a hike in Ohio would be the first step toward increasing wages across the nation.
“This cause will not end when we are victorious raising the minimum wage here in the state of Ohio,” he said. “It will continue next year and the next year and the next year until we are living in a United States of America where every single American is treated the same way.”
It’s a shame that there are so many things going wrong these days that Democrats can hardly spend their time focusing their energies on one issue. Iraq is the only constant, but right now, the big issue of the day is North Korea. Before that, it was other issues such as the minimum wage, immigration reform, pointless constitutional amendments. However, one must admire Edwards for selecting an issue to focus on after the presidential election – poverty in America – that no one would have taken seriously. In his position as director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, Edwards has been a tireless advocate of the lower class in America. While campaigning for Ohio’s minimum wage increase, Edwards had some good advice for his – and our – party:
Also during his speech, Edwards said the Democratic party should abandon baby steps and focus-group-driven ideas and stand up for those who have no voice.
“I believe in a Democratic party with a little backbone and a little guts,” he said.
After the speech, Edwards said a minimum wage ballot issue could help bring more Democrats to the polls. But, he said, he would be willing to give up any strategic advantage at the polls to have federal lawmakers raise the minimum wage across the country.
Big ideas are something that the Democratic Party needs more of. Their congressional campaign agenda, A New Direction, is a good first step – but it’s a baby step that’s high on rhetoric and low on policy content. While simplifying what we believe in is something that the Democratic Party is in sore need of, there needs to be substance behind the slogans in order to make those of us who closely follow politics enthusiastic about it. That’s where something like Edwards’ idea of A Working Society comes in.
A copy of his speech distributed to reporters and embragoed until this morning shows that Edwards proposes to “radically overhaul” the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; to create 1 million “stepping stone” jobs over the next five years, to raise the minimum wage, and to refocus the American education system.
“I propose a great national goal, because Americans believe in achieving great things,” Edwards plans to say. “Like JFK challenging America to land a man on the moon, a national goal of eradicating poverty will sharpen our focus, marshal our resources and at the end of the day, bring out our best.”
This is not some head-in-the-clouds liberalism; this is a pragmatic first step forward in resuming the whole point of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society – to eliminate poverty in America. Strengthening our education system, reforming an inefficient bureaucracy in Washington, raising the minimum wage, and creating concrete jobs in America is a great start. A bold idea is not promising to cut the deficit in half in 5 years – something that sounds good but is neither that remarkable nor realistic, given this adminstration’s shitty fiscal record. A bold idea is confronting an issue that no one wants to face and offering fresh leadership on it. Just look at the demographic information for the areas hit by Hurricane Katrina, and you will understand that we need to do a better job of taking care of Americans.
The focus on the minimum wage is beginning to produce leadership at the state level. Today, Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell signed into law a $2 increase in the state minimum wage. No longer is talk of a minimum wage increase derided as a liberal spending measure; it’s now spoken of as common sense and a belief that we should help improve the lives of our fellow citizens. For too long, we have treated poverty just as this Marlon Brando quote puts it: “If we are not our brother’s keeper, at least let us not be his executioner.” It’s time that America collectively shoulders its great obligation to provide for those less fortunate. It should not be a political issue; it should be our moral duty. And it has a great champion and a good man at the front: John Edwards.
I like Edwards for precisely the points you make here. And I think yr emphasis on the MORALITY of the poverty issue is spot on. The people who will take our country away from the plutocrats will not be afraid of being accused of “class warfare” for pointing out that the top 10/5/1% have been making out like bandits as our country becomes more stratified and more like Brazil and other large third world countries. Sure, there has been “economic growth” over the last 20 years, but almost all of it has made the rich richer and thereby exacerbated the fundamental plutocracy problem our society faces.
I do think the emphasis should be on LIVING WAGE rather than MINIMUM WAGE. Any business that desires to operate in the public sphere should be required to pay non-family employees a wage sufficient to raise them above the poverty-line income for full-time work. If a business cannot do that, and in other words depends on poverty level wages to stay in business, it should not be granted the privilege of profit-seeking in the public sphere.
I honestly don’t understand the opposition to minimum wage laws. If anything, large corporations should be fighting hard for it because if you give a single mom another 8 or 10 bucks a day pay raise, that money will go directly into the pockets of Wal-Mart and other big retailers. Tax rebates to low-income families are exactly the same. That’s how you stimulate an economy and help people at the same time.
The bogus rationale is that minimum wage laws “hurt” people at the bottom because employers might choose not to hire anyone (if they have to pay those they do a decent wage!). The real reason is an ideological belief that democracy should have no power to limit capital — profits before people is the fundamental principle of capitalist plutocracy generally and the economic rightists in particular.
But…but…John Stossel said… đŸ™‚
I know what you mean though, too many people in the Republican and Democratic party seem to cede economic theory to Milton Friedman. The Democrats need to start finding economic populists who can speak to people at a gut level. Hell, I can’t stand Lou Dobbs, but when he was hammering on outsourcing a while back, people actually were talking about the issue. Even people who I had heard praising Bush were repeating the talking points and were slamming Bush and the Republican’s handling of outsourcing. Real wages are stagnant and have been for some time, people are hungry to hear someone who seems to understand the problems of the average folks and has a plan to deal with it.
Thank you. I’m constantly telling people you can’t have both capitalism and democracy – one is antithetical to the other. Most people give me a blank stare when I say this, so maybe I will try quoting you next time – this is incredibly to the point:
That’s the heart of it, right there. The right to vote means the right NOT to have a “free market” but a regulated market, regulated by voters and the representatives of voters. Ideally, anyway.
Btw – I was just in Canada, at Niagara Falls. What a lesson in the blessings of Socialism. The National Park Service runs Niagara Falls Park, a HUGE, EXPENSIVE, BEAUTIFULLY manicured several mile strip of land along the Niagara River, WITHOUT ANY TAX DOLLARS from the government. Profits from all goods and services in the park are plowed right back into the park. They can afford to hire law students for traffic guards.
The park is the cleanest I’ve ever been in. Not a spot of trash anywhere except in the trash cans. You won’t see gardeners out working – they come at 2am when you’re asleep to do their work. And the service is excellent. People at various attraction points are well trained, happy, at ease with themselves, and that starts with the employer.
And then there’s that fantastic health care system..!
I’m not opposed to capitalism per se. i’m opposed to the notion of “free and unfettered” capitalism, because I don’t see it working when it exists. Too many things are not put into the balance. For example, capital is free to pick up and move to another spot of the globe in a heartbeat. Labor is not. Capital can influence legislation with heavy donations. Individuals cannot. And a rising tide doesn’t life all boats if it only happens in a private lagoon.
Thank you! The way you describe the Park Service site up there sounds like a model for a cooperative — an enterprise bringing in enough money to maintain and improve things while providing its worker-‘owners’ a decent livelihood. That’s a form of economic organization many people would probably support if we thought more about it.
Like you, I am convinced a real democracy would not have anything like the market-worship, free-the-rich-man capitalism we have now in the US.
Here’s another example of the inherent contradiction between capitalism and democracy: capitalism works when money makes money, that is, when society is organized and functioning so that capital produces a return on investment. When capitalism is ‘wroking,’ money makes money even if it’s sitting in the bank doing nothing but collecting interest. Some risk-takers may lose money they invest seeking higher returns, but overall, more wealth is created because, when things are working ‘correctly’, money makes money. But that means that when capitalism ‘works’ the people with most of the money (the economic elite in the top 10 / 5 / 1%) are making even more money. In other words, when working ‘correctly’, capital (and the wealth and power it represents) concentrates in fewer and fewer hands. Why would people in a real democracy stand for this? Why would they agree to go along with a social-economic form of organization that gives so much wealth and power to a small percentage of the group? Obviously, I don’t think they would and I think we live in a virtual, not a real democracy.
But that’s a rant for another time…
JE that is one man who would make a good President. And a War on proverty, is one war I would support.
I think he’s still a little green on foreign policy. But overall, I like him a lot – he’s affable and is working on an issue that’s not sexy but is extremely important. I had a chance to see him at a townhall meeting in the southeast PA suburbs in mid-October, and he came across a lot better than Kerry usually did at the campaign rallies I went to.
Name me one politicial issue that’s not a moral issue.