A broad Christian coalition unveils the poverty videos
As the post-debate spin cycle continues, it’s clear who was left behind in the huffing at Hofstra on Tuesday—the 42.6 million people who dwell below the poverty line. Maybe they should be grateful that along the way of indicting President Obama’s economic policies, Mitt Romney mentioned poverty in passing (which is more than Obama did). Aside from that hit and run, the steady mantra of the evening in Long Island was “the middle class.”
The poor shall always be with you, but not so much in election year discourse. Still, there was a resonant moment back in September when Obama and Romney sounded as though they were reading from the playbook of Matthew 25 (“As you have done to the least of these, you have done to me”).
As I report in this week’s Our Sunday Visitor, Romney and Obama appeared in separate videos in which they grappled with the moral challenges of domestic poverty. These were not secret videos, taped behind closed doors. The campaigns produced them in response to a request from the Circle of Protection, an anti-poverty coalition of Christian leaders spearheaded two years ago by the Sojourners community.
Leaders of the initiative made much of the harmonious convergence between the two contenders. And there was a fair bit of that, on the surface at least.
In his message, Romney said he was grateful for “the opportunity to share my plan to protect the poor and vulnerable among us.” Obama said his own faith teaches him that poverty is a moral issue, and “The Bible calls on us to be our brother’s keeper and our sister’s keeper.” Each message ran a little over three minutes and was unveiled at a Circle of Protection press conference on September 12.
Both Romney and Obama spoke of poverty reduction as an urgent priority (“more important now than at any other time in recent memory,” the Republican said). Both vowed to slash the deficit, but Romney promised to “proceed carefully,” adding: “Our government rightfully provides a safety net” for the needy that must remain intact. And, aiming straight at his opponent, Obama said the poor and struggling shouldn’t have to “sacrifice even more … just so we could offer massive new tax cuts to those who have been blessed the most.”
The commonalities faded as the two spoke of how they would tamp down poverty levels. The thrust of Romney’s message was that this would happen as a consequence of a more robust economy, ushered in by his administration (and its plan that he did not specify). Obama spoke more about specific government action, including health insurance coverage and other “vital assistance for the least of these.”
The Faith Factor
There was nothing earth shattering in these messages, and they drew little notice beyond the constituencies of the Circle of Protection, which brings together leaders of some 50 evangelical, liberal Protestant, and Catholic organizations. (In that sense they might well have been, for all practical purposes, secret videos.)
But what the Obama/Romney videos tell me is that that politicians feel they have to say the right things about poverty, when they’re in the right settings. And I can’t think of a context other than faith-based discourse that would lead both party standard bearers to speak with such sympathy and resolve about the poor, even for just three minutes.
Maybe this means there should be more, not less, religion in politics. Signs are that young evangelicals, for example, are finding little use for the politics of the religious right. In the future, evangelicals may not be cheering when Republicans say unflattering things about the poor, or when Democrats say nothing at all.
Two points of divergence.
First, for the purposes of a political campaign in the United States poor people are nonexistent. Lower-income people don’t vote in sufficient numbers to make any difference and when they do, they often vote against their own interests — how else can we explain poor white Southern Republicans?
Second, in U.S. history religion has been so grossly abused for political purposes, that the less I see of it the more comfortable I feel. The largely mute Romney, who can’t speak about religion without bringing up the negative Mormon-factor in his own base, and the mostly secular Obama who went so far as to disavow his pastor, again, for expediency, are music to my ears. Both claim to be religious in the conventional sense, which generally means little more than good manners; that’s fine because it’s true as far as it goes of all politicians.
I agree but I think there’s more to it.
Your point is very well taken. The invisibility of the poor in the campaign–and, I might add, the invisibility of workers–is reprehensible. The centrality to nearly every faith-based tradition (including those of the candidates) of giving a helping hand to the poor–and at the same time helping them to become more independent if possible–is something every potential voter needs to hear, and there might be more low-income voters if such a message were widely proclaimed. In the same sense, we hear very little (even, sadly, from the President) about worker inujustice, although treating workers fairly (middle-class or low-income) is another central feature of faith-based traditions. These messages don’t have to be proclaimed as religious messages, although they are certainly spiritual (there is a difference). Many so-called secular humanists (I say “so-called” because humanism is humanism no matter who practices it) believe in these messages too, and indeed often do a better job of preaching them than “religious” folks.