Attempts to explain economic insecurity are usually
superficial. Most commentators analyze only the most obvious
reasons why people face poverty or the threat of poverty. One
example is 1992 testimony to the House of Representatives
by Isabel Sawhill, now a top-level Clinton
Administration official. In this
testimony, she cited three reasons for increased child poverty
during the years immediately prior to her testimony:
1) the increase in the number of single-parent families;
2) declining wages;
3) decreases in public income assistance.
Sawhill's explanation was accurate as far as it went. The three factors she described did contribute to a rise in the number of children living in poverty. She ignored important, underlying factors, however. She stopped short of asking why the number of single-parent families increased, wages declined, and income assistance was cut.
Young children ask why relentlessly; but they learn to stop. As adults, we need to remind ourselves to keep peeling away surface layers to find deeper answers to our questions - including the question we face here: why is there so much economic insecurity in this abundantly wealthy country?
The history of poverty in the United States, as presented in the previous chapter, suggests an answer that is rarely articulated, however obvious it may be: the poor are poor because wealthy people want them to be poor. At the beginning of this country, a small minority seized most of the wealth for itself, forced a large segment of the population to live in poverty, and set up a political system that ever since has concentrated the nation's wealth in the hands of a relatively few white men who pass it on from generation to generation. Commentators on economic insecurity typically overlook this basic reality. But we need to go deeper still. Understanding why the wealthy want to perpetuate poverty cannot simply be explained by greed, the most obvious reason. Other factors also motivate their actions. Understanding these power dynamics can help us overcome them.
Prior to industrialization, wealth was derived from the conquest of land. A close look at the control of land during the early days of this country's history illustrates how ruling elites created wealth and poverty. The new nations of Europe were anxious to exploit the enormous resources of the New World. As historian Hugh Brogan puts it, these lands "were free, it seemed, for the taking. A few years of physical suffering were all that any part of it exacted as the price of conquest." In relatively little time, eight to ten million Native Americans living north of the Rio Grande were decimated, easing the migration of forty million Europeans westward across the Atlantic.
The expansion of colonial empires was driven by the lure of profits. But it was also motivated by a desire on the part of European governments to undercut political rebellion at home. Aristocracies saw out-migration as a way to get rid of discontented, underemployed troublemakers. At first, there was little interest among the general population in bearing the risks involved. So the courts forced many of the disenfranchised to endure the oceanic voyage, and governments used the promise of free or virtually free land to entice others to try their luck in the New World. A rabid hunger for land soon spread like wild fire.
During the early days of colonization, the European super-powers simply claimed ownership of new lands "by right of prior discovery." Whichever explorer landed first simply raised a flag and claimed the surrounding land for his nation. Hence the symbolism of historic flag-raising scenes. These claims to land meant nothing, however, without the military muscle to back them up.
Eager to counter Spain's control of Central America, England claimed North America based on the voyages led by John Cabot from 1497 to 1499 along the northeastern coast of the continent. But the English were initially unable to hold on to North America. The French and Portuguese, attracted to the rich fisheries of the Nova Scotia area, soon dominated that region. In 1524, the French took over the Hudson River region, including the area that is now New York City. But religious wars on the continent undercut the French effort to colonize North America, enabling the Dutch to seize Manhattan Island about one hundred years later and name it "New Amsterdam." In 1664, the English took back control of the area and renamed it "New-York." These changes illustrate how the claim to land depends on military might.
The ebb and flow of European powers in North America continued for 400 years, punctuated by intermittent wars that were mostly struggles over land. Even during periods of relative peace, the conflict played itself out on the high seas as each country stole one another's colonial loot by subsidizing pirates to plunder it in transit. Sir Walter Raleigh, for example, sent the first settlers to Virginia to establish a base for pirates to rob the Spanish fleet for the English crown. And Sir Francis Drake, on one of his expeditions, burned the entire town of Santo Domingo, which had been established by Spain in what is now the Dominican Republic, when its settlers were unable to meet his demand for gold (because they had none).
Though at times the process of taking land from Native Americans was "legitimized" with fraudulent deals, token payments, and treaties (that were usually soon broken), colonial powers essentially seized land by military force. As Mao Tse Tung said years later, "political power grows out of the barrel of the gun." Or, as Max Weber wrote:
Thus, governments have been established by their ability to kill or physically punish those who resist their policies, including the definition of property rights.
The confiscation of North America and the refusal to share the land with its native inhabitants troubled the conscience of many conquerors. So they tried to justify their theft with various theological arguments concerning "manifest destiny." The following statement by John Winthrop, the original patriarch of New England, is typical:
Subsequently, ruling elites used similar arguments to justify concentrating the wealth of the nation in the hands of a few, who have mostly been white males. They used these rationalizations to legitimize the use of physical force to limit economic opportunity for white women, Native Americans, African slaves and their descendants, and the vast majority of white males. But these arguments have confused what is essentially a brute reality: those with power have taken whatever they wanted when they were able - so long as they have considered it in their self-interest to do so.
Elites have shared some of their wealth when powerful political pressure has persuaded them to do so. In those cases, they have generally let go only of the minimum necessary to placate people who have threatened to take more.
These maneuvers are revealed by early land policies. During the early years of this country, the ability to own land was often used as a pawn in political power games. Political calculations behind decisions concerning the distribution of land are seen time and again. Initially, for example, white indentured servants were offered the promise of nearby land following their period of servitude. Once freed, they cleared and developed their land, which contributed to the growth of local towns and villages. These activities increased the value of land held by their former owners. In this way, it initially served the interest of the wealthy elites to allow the first wave of indentured servants to become landowners.
When individuals in the colonies obtained title to property, they often had to negotiate with squatters living on their land. The squatters would sometimes be allowed to stay by paying nominal rents until they improved the land to the point that it could be sold. Landowners would then force the squatters to leave or buy some or all of the property. Owners thus determined the ability of others to stay on their land according to their own economic self-interest.
As the price of African slaves fell and the slave trade flourished, it was no longer necessary to attract whites with the prospect of land ownership, for masters could force slaves to do physical labor more cheaply. Consequently, colonial governments generally stopped allowing indentured servants to assume ownership of land once they earned their freedom. The terms of indenture and access to land changed according to what elites considered to be in their self-interest.
The use of land ownership as a political tool is also demonstrated by various military expeditions. For example, when the British Governor of Virginia sent Lieutenant George Washington (who later became President) to lead troops in an effort to expel French settlers in the Ohio Valley, the governor promised the enlisted men free land in exchange for their service. But once the conflict was over, Washington and a partner altered the governor's proclamation so that officers could get free land as well, thereby cheating his troops out of 20,000 acres of the best land.
Prior to independence, those in control - whether a private company chartered by the Crown of England, the Crown itself, or a colonial legislature controlled by the Crown - seized unsettled land and gave it to selected individuals, who got title to property free of charge or for only a minimal payment. In this way, ruling elites were able to reinforce their power by building political loyalties among their peers.
Before 1800, the British were very careful about seizing land from Native Americans on the western frontier. England wanted to avoid costly conflicts on the frontier while it consolidated its position on the coast. So colonial governments treated Native Americans in that region with relative respect and made extravagant promises to get them to cooperate peacefully. England even tried to prevent expansion into lands beyond the Appalachian Mountains with the Proclamation of 1763 that outlawed westward expansion. George Washington described this proclamation as "a temporary expedient to quiet the minds of the Indians." The British wanted to avoid provoking the powerful Iroquois League into forming alliances with France and/or Spain, who were contesting England for control of North America.
After 1800, however, France and Spain held a weaker position in North America. So the new government in Washington - the United States of America - was free to become more aggressive and brutal in the treatment of Native Americans.
The Proclamation of 1763 was also motivated by another calculation. The British government wanted to push settlers north and south along the coast, where, as the government itself put it:
This particular effort backfired, however. The Proclamation of 1763 provoked extreme resentment among colonists who wanted the western lands for themselves and contributed greatly to the decision to go to war against Britain.
The initiators of the War of Independence rejected the direct inheritance of political power as it had operated under European monarchs. But the victors preserved the direct inheritance of wealth. Post-colonial governments maintained the distribution of wealth and poverty established by Britain and set up a new government that enabled the wealthy to protect and expand its wealth. Each succeeding government has used its police power to protect this extreme concentration of wealth. With a variety of mechanisms, wealthy elites have managed to wield enormous influence over each succeeding government. In this way, wealthy families have been able to preserve their political power indirectly, even though they have no longer inherited it directly. As the Medici family of 16th Century Florence in Italy said: 'Money to get power, power to protect money.'"
The post-colonial government proved wiser than the British in utilizing its control of unsettled land. The new government declared that all of the territory from the Appalachian Mountains to the Mississippi and from Florida to Canada would be held by the United States Congress in the name of the American people. In 1785, Congress passed the Land Ordinance, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, which provided that these lands would be sold in units of 640 acres for not less than a dollar an acre. Most citizens could not afford this price.
Setting a high price on these lands enabled wealthy land speculators to make a killing. The wealthy could buy land, subdivide it into smaller units, and thereby reap enormous profits, by selling the smaller units at prices others could afford. In return, wealthy elites gave their support to the shaky new federal government, which continued to facilitate a steady increase in the concentration of wealth in other ways as well.
The government's careful reckoning concerning the control of land is also seen in certain post-Civil War decisions. In the South, after the Civil War, ex-slaves pushed for title to some of the land that they had enriched with their labor. A committee on the Georgia Sea Islands, for example, wrote to President Johnson:
After some deliberation, however, the federal government decided to return to those who had most recently held title all the Southern lands it had seized. President Andrew Johnson ordered soldiers to forcibly remove the former slaves from their forty acres of land.
At that same time, the federal government was giving 160-acre plots of land to settlers who had the means to cross the Mississippi and even more land to the burgeoning railroad industry to expedite the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad. Following acquisition of lands west of the Mississippi (which was achieved in part by provoking a war with Mexico to seize control of the Southwest and California), the Homestead Act of 1862 enticed settlers westward with land grants. This law enabled homesteaders to assume ownership after cultivating a piece of land for five years.
Like the English before them, the leaders of the new Congress were honest about one motive behind their decision to subsidize migration: they hoped to reduce political rebellion by the poor in the East by persuading the dissatisfied to go west. As one Senator from Wisconsin explained his support for the Homestead Act:
In the 1860s, the desire to build the Transcontinental Railroad led the Congress, greatly influenced by bribes, to give 131 million acres, free of charge, to wealthy investors who sold the land and used some of their profits to lay track. The amount of land given to the railroads was more than twice the sum given away under the Homestead Act. In this way, once again, the selective distribution of land enriched certain wealthy individuals directly, while at the same time indirectly serving the financial interests of other wealthy individuals.
The Southern Homestead Act, which "reserved all federal lands - one-third of the area of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi - for farmers who would work the land," became another pawn in a political power struggle in 1877. In the midst of a terrible depression, the result of the 1876 Presidential election was thrown into uncertainty in the electoral college. This dispute led to political upheaval and the threat of another civil war. In return for Southern votes for Rutherford Hayes, Northern officials agreed to remove Union troops from the South and to repeal the Southern Homestead Act. These actions facilitated the consolidation of white power in the South and enabled wealthy, powerful absentee speculators to buy up valuable land.
The New World was enormous, but it was limited. The ability to utilize this scarce natural resource was essential. The fact that a small minority controlled most of the new land meant that most citizens were excluded from the opportunity to prosper and were forced to struggle to survive. The calculated distribution of that land was a major issue. These decisions were made carefully with great attention to the consequences. The new rulers of the United States were keenly aware of what had happened to the British when they miscalculated. Wanting to avoid the same fate for themselves, they set aside some of the new land for ordinary folk to keep them quiet. But the fact that wealthy elites gained control of most of the land was no accident.
Access to land and the definition of property rights were thus key elements in the development of the United States. As the Christian theologian Philip Wogaman (President Clinton's minister) has argued, the right to property, which varies from society to society, is not an abstract, pre-existing natural right. Rather, each society molds the definition of private-property rights in its own way. Each individual is entitled to property only because its government so declares. As Wogaman puts it:
Most of the leaders of the new United States government were wealthy. They socialized and identified with people of wealth and privilege. Abbot Smith, in his study of the colonial period, concluded that this period
An essential provision in the Constitution of the new United States of America was an agreement to allow each state to establish voting requirements, rather than establishing uniform standards nationwide. This provision meant that in most places, those who did not own land could not vote. In some states, only the very wealthy could hold state office. Sailors, apprentices, many craftsmen, indentured servants, women, and slaves were thus excluded from having a voice in the selection of those representatives who were to rule the new government.
The ideology of the day was clearly expressed by Alexander Hamilton (the chief architect of the Constitution and the first Secretary of the Treasury), who argued:
The founding fathers feared landless people who were demanding more for themselves. In reference to one such bloody rebellion, General Henry Knox echoed a dominant sentiment among the aristocracy of the day in a letter to George Washington:
The founders thus consciously crafted governmental institutions and economic policies to protect British-created wealth and proceeded to operate this government with this primary aim in mind. Each successive government has functioned along the same line.
In a 1787 letter to Jefferson reporting on the Constitutional Convention, Madison discussed a key strategy that elites have long used to protect their wealth and power: divide and conquer. Madison wrote:
Madison and his peers were surely familiar with this strategy, for colonial empires had used it effectively for centuries. These colonial policies are still being played out today in former colonies. Post-colonial governments reinforce their own power by manipulating resentments toward ethnic groups that colonial governments had selected to assist them in their domination. In 1994 Gareth Austin commented:
As intended with this structure, it has been extremely difficult for "the majority" to effectively demand significant change in national policy to promote the general welfare. The weight of existing policy operates to preserve the status quo - especially the wealth of the upper echelon and their ability to operate freely to multiply their wealth.
Concerning poverty, the post-colonial government copied the English model and stipulated that aid to the poor was the responsibility of local governments. This delegation of responsibility effectively meant that the poor would not receive much assistance, for local governments are inherently severely limited in their financial resources. On the one hand, if local governments increase taxes dramatically, they risk driving away taxpayers and businesses. At the same time, if local governments make major improvements in the lives of the poor within their jurisdiction, they risk attracting poor people from other regions, thereby increasing their tax burden.
The same difficulties do not apply to the federal government. Higher taxes are unlikely to force the wealthy out of the country. Most of the industrialized countries to which they might move already have higher taxes than does the United States and tax laws can severely penalize revoking citizenship. Moreover, immigration into the country is restricted, whereas movement between states is not. Thus, the push-and-pull factors that limit state and local governments do not apply to the federal government. These realities require that solutions to poverty must be national in scope.
The Depression of the 1930s forced the federal government to assume certain responsibilities for the poor and almost-poor. But a fragmented system remains largely in place. Major responsibility for the destitute remains in the hands of local and state governments that are unable to effectively remedy the situation. Each level of government is able to point the finger at the other when constituents demand an explanation for inaction. As Stanley Shere, an anti-homelessness activist in San Francisco said:
Wealthy elites have also used "divide and conquer" to shore up their positions in the private sector. In a review of Modern Manors: Welfare Capitalism Since the New Deal by Sanford M. Jacoby, historian Nelson Lichtenstein discussed how Kodak management vigorously opposed substantial Social Security retirement benefits because they did not want Social Security to undermine the relative attractiveness of their own retirement package. By establishing a generous image with their own workers, Kodak weakened organized political pressure for increased Social Security benefits. By helping to keep Social Security low, Kodak encouraged their workers to be loyal to Kodak rather than to their co-workers elsewhere.
Throughout history, rulers have been well aware
of how to use racism to divide the people and perpetuate the status
quo. Government officials have consciously created divisions
based on skin color to serve the interests of those in power.
The following examples in the history of this country illustrate
the point:
President Lyndon Johnson told Bill Moyers:
A striking comment by a former prostitute who probably gave her customers the AIDS virus illustrates the need for convenient targets: "I infected a lot of people with a lot of different things.... But I didn't care. Somebody was getting paid back for all the pain I had." Oppressed people are prone to "take it out" on anyone they can. In part because it has been accepted by society-at-large, people of color often serve as a handy punching bag.
The strategy of fomenting racism has continued in
recent times, as demonstrated by the following examples:
Inflaming racial tensions serves to divide low- and middle-income people and pit them against one another, thereby reducing the possibility that they will join together to confront vital issues of economic injustice. The same dynamic can be seen with the oppression of other groups of people, including women, gays, and lesbians. The United States continues to legitimize discrimination against women by not requiring equal pay for equal work and not enacting the Equal Rights Amendment. And it foments bias against homosexuals by measures such as authorizing the expulsion of military personnel who are found to be gay or lesbian.
By refusing to protect the rights of minorities, the federal government forces them to protest and fight publicly for equal justice. These struggles are necessarily confrontational, resulting in bitter divisions among people who otherwise could more easily unite around common economic interests over against wealthy elites. To the degree that each group fights only for its own self-interest without also joining with the majority for common economic interests, the fragmentation of the electorate into various "identity groups" reinforces the elite's historic "divide and conquer" strategy.
The essence of racism is the belief that a certain group is genetically inferior. Racists claim that this supposed genetic inferiority, also reflected in skin color, is the reason for social and economic deprivation: "they're in that condition because that's the way they are." This blaming whole groups of people for their oppression ties in neatly with the individualistic "Horatio Alger" myth that "you can be anything you want to be." As described by Roger Wilkins:
Perhaps the most important division among the people, however, has been the division between the poor and the "middle class." Far too often, middle-income people have blamed the poor for poverty and supported the wealthy because they have hoped to become wealthy themselves. As the political commentator Michael Kinsley put it, "American politics can be seen ... as a battle between the poor and the rich for the allegiance of the middle class. Call it empathy vs. aspiration."
In exchange for forsaking protest, poor activists have often accepted financial rewards that have lifted them out of poverty into the middle class. Some modest degree of affluence has repeatedly been sufficient to persuade many troublemakers to reach an accommodation with "the system." These deals have openly "bought off" rebellious groups, thereby undermining rebellions that eventually could have achieved a more complete redistribution of wealth.
In the middle of the War of Independence, for example, the New York Legislature was faced with widespread rebellion among tenant farmers in Duchess County. The farmers resented well-connected contractors who were flourishing from war-related business. When many of these farmers stopped paying rent, the Legislature confiscated land from Loyalist supporters of England and gave it to 400 farm families, thereby quelling the rebellion and gaining important support from the new voters in local political maneuverings.
The history of the Hudson River Valley near Albany provides another example. In the mid-1800s, hundreds of thousands of tenant farmers worked enormous tracts of land owned by extremely wealthy landowners. During hard times, unable to pay rent, they organized forceful resistance against eviction under the name of the "Anti-Rent Movement." This movement persisted for some four decades. By the early 1880s, this political agitation had enabled most of the farmers to obtain title to their land. But the terms made it difficult for most of them to keep their head above water. Some 20 percent were still tenant farmers. As the historian Howard Zinn concludes in his account of this rebellion: "the system [was] stabilized by enlarging the class of small landowners, leaving the basic structure of rich and poor intact. It was a common sequence in American history."
The fate of the Populist Party at the turn of the century also demonstrates this pattern of seducing the leaders of a protest movement to betray their principles. After achieving some victories in local races in 1890, the Populist Party won more than a third of the vote in nine states during the Presidential Campaign of 1892 and was building real momentum for a challenge to entrenched economic interests. Based on a call for unity among rural farmers and urban workers and its claim that "wealth belongs to him who creates it," the Populist Party called for vigorous action by the federal government to protect the interests of working people. But the Democratic Party adopted weak versions of much of the Populist program and seduced the populists with the hope of quickly electing William Jennings Bryan President, while forsaking their overall program.
The established powers also undermined the threat of the populist movement by shaping the self-image of farmers. The historian Richard Hofstadter describes this co-optation in The Age of Reform:
This "labor-capital accord" resulted in relative tranquillity. But during the process, most labor unions became increasingly concerned only about higher wages for their own members. Labor unions neglected organizing the unorganized, the development of strong alliances among unions, and the formation of coalitions with community-based organizations struggling for justice on a variety of fronts. Consequently, although some workers achieved remarkably high levels of compensation, the majority of the workforce has been poorly-paid, underemployed, or unemployed.
The same dynamic is reflected in the African American revolt of the 1960s. Often overlooked in accounts of this period is the fact that economic issues were at the heart of the civil-rights movement. The segregation of public facilities and restrictions on voting rights in the South receives much of the attention today. But the famous 1963 March on Washington was a march for "justice and jobs." Many of the demonstrations outside the South focused on demands for the employment of blacks. When Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, he was organizing a Poor People's March on Washington demanding that the government guarantee the right to a living-wage income.
In response to this serious threat to public order, the powers-that-be responded with a War on Poverty that was in large part "A Campaign to Seduce Black Leaders." After rejecting a Labor Department proposal to create public-sector jobs, the Johnson Administration chose instead to focus on "community empowerment." Funds were provided for neighborhood boards to run various programs that were supposed to reduce poverty, largely indirectly. But most importantly, community leaders were offered well-paying jobs to run these programs, which led to the phrase "poverty pimp" becoming commonplace in ghettos. Many activists suddenly became concerned most of all with maintaining the flow of funds for their own salaries and forgot about the need for broader change in public policy.
Since then, a substantial portion of the African American community has been incorporated into the middle-class, leading to co-optation similar to that seen in other communities. Nearly one in seven African American families had annual incomes of $50,000 or more in 1989, four times the number in 1967. As reported by the Los Angeles Times:
The same tension between gains for a few versus the interests of everyone is seen in the history of the welfare-rights movement. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, this movement was able to amass considerable power demanding and achieving increased public assistance for low-income families. The strength of this movement was rooted in its ability to win increased benefits for its members at administrative hearings and by demanding changes in local welfare policy.
Concentrating energies in this way, however, ultimately proved to be counter-productive. As Linda Gordon comments, "...[A]t a certain point the long-range goals of benefiting all welfare recipients were no longer advanced by these daily, individual gains." Devoting so much energy to the fight for individuals' rights weakened the struggle for universal human rights. Winning victories for individuals or even particular populations can help build a political constituency among those who benefit. But sustaining that momentum and directing it toward change in national policies to provide universal benefits is another matter. As was the case with the union movement, once enough members get their own rewards, the energy for further protest tends to wane.
Governing elites have been keenly aware of the importance of creating a strong middle-class as a way to help stabilize poverty-ridden economies that are prone to turmoil if too many citizens become rebellious. This awareness can often be seen in discussions of third-world countries. Following the withdrawal of the Marines from Haiti in 1934, for example, a government commission concluded that a major reason for "the failure of the occupation [was] its brusque attempt to plant democracy there by drill and harrow, its determination to set up a middle class." Growing a middle-class gradually works better than trying to "plant" one "brusquely," the report suggests. But establishing a middle-class as a buffer against the poor is acknowledged as essential.
Historically, the seductive power of "upward mobility" has served to persuade most Americans to accept unjust economic conditions. Until recently, most generations have been able to improve on their parents' standard of living. The standard antipoverty program has been more "economic growth." In the midst of these conditions, it has been easy for victims of discrimination, such as people of color and women, to simply demand "equality."
Equality so defined, however, means an equal share of injustice. There is no justification for low-income people having to bear a dispro-portionate burden. Demands for "equality" need not accept poverty. We can demand economic security for all while at the same time pushing for affirmative action and other steps to counter the effects of discrimination. In fact, establishing economic security will make it easier to achieve equality, for economic insecurity will no longer fuel divisions. To date, however, the allure of getting "my piece of the pie" has diverted many Americans from aiming to reconstruct the pie. "Selling out" continues to be far too common, as self-centered materialism runs rampant.
The building of barriers between the poor and middle-class is ongoing. Class divisions continue to weaken political opposition to existing conditions. In 1991, for example, the Bush Administration proposed increasing college-tuition grants for families who earn less than $10,000 a year, while eliminating them for students from families above that threshold. This plan rightly moved Jesse Jackson to comment:
In these examples, we observe a consistent pattern. When faced with a serious threat that could lead to a populist seizure of wealth, the system manages to relinquish enough rewards to suppress the rebellion. As Henry Stern expressed it so succinctly in a letter to the editor of the San Francisco Examiner, "The people winning this class war are willing to pay no more than the least it is possible for them to get away with."
Another central weapon in the government's political arsenal has been the use and threatened use of police power. As governments have utilized the military to take land, so have they employed the police, with military backup as needed, to subdue the inhabitants. As Leo Tolstoy surmised, "The advantages of the rich over the poor could not and cannot be maintained by anything but violence." Awareness of this reality presumably led Pope Leo XIII in 1891 to declare, "A small number of the very rich have been able to lay upon the teeming masses a yoke little better than that of slavery itself."
Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in 1676 was one of the most serious colonial-era uprisings. In a rare instance of unity, poor whites, indentured servants, and African slaves were united and armed. The elite saw this revolt against taxes, favoritism, and economic oppression as a dangerous precedent that could spread to other areas of the country if successful. At one point, the Governor fled the capital in fear of his safety. Eventually, a thousand British soldiers came to the rescue, hanged twenty-three rebel leaders, and eliminated what could have been a dangerous precedent.
With the advent of industrialization and the increase in the number of unemployed persons congregated in urban areas in the 1800s, those with money and power became increasingly concerned about the specter of widespread disorder. The need to assert established authority and intimidate the poor rose in importance. In a review of David Montgomery's book, Citizen Worker, Nelson Lichenstein recounts how the system chose to deal with this dilemma:
Behind the scenes, police intelligence units and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have undermined the activity of non-violent groups seeking fundamental social change. The sustained FBI campaign to discredit Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, was no aberration but merely another example of police power being used to counter what was perceived to be a political threat to the status quo.
The maintenance of order extends into daily life. The affluent and comfortable are troubled by visible signs of human suffering. Those with an active conscience cannot rest easy if they are constantly reminded that the poor languish in unbearable conditions. Others simply don't like being forced to see sights they consider "ugly." So the police have traditionally tried to persuade the poor to make themselves invisible. Failing that, they lock up the poor "out of sight, out of mind" in psychiatric institutions, drunk tanks and nursing homes.
Shifting compensation from workers to supervisors, as documented by David Gordon in Fat and Mean: The Corporate Squeeze of Working Americans and the Myth of Managerial “Downsizing,” is another way that owners and executives have maintained loyalty among the middle-class. According to Gordon’s calculations, the average worker has lost about 1 percent a year to inflation since the early 1970s, and supervisors have gained an almost equivalent amount. Moreover, supervisors are becoming an ever-larger share of the total workforce, as corporations lay off blue-collar workers and their equivalents faster than they downsize white-collar workers. This growth in the ranks of supervisors is driven in part by the need to control dispirited (and less productive) workers faced with falling wages. But it also, not coincidentally, serves to preserve the allegiance of the bosses’ agents to a system that divides to conquer.
In addition to comforting those who are disturbed by visible poverty, these measures also serve to undermine political action. The poor themselves are less likely to engage in political agitation if they are constantly being harassed by the police. At the same time, if people of conscience are not constantly reminded of the true nature and extent of poverty, they can more easily forget these troubling realities without feeling compelled to take political action.
In much the same way, the government's definition of poverty serves to weaken political action. The government counts only about 10 percent of the population as poor. Moreover, these people are not "typical" Americans, especially in terms of race, marital status, and employment status. A more accurate reporting of the number of people counted as poor and the kind of people counted as poor, as proposed in Chapter Four, would increase awareness that most Americans can easily fall into poverty. This greater awareness would result in more outrage among the American people. The larger the number of people considered poor and the more they look like average Americans, the more sympathy there will be for the poor and the more pressure there will be to address the problem.
On the other hand, the smaller the number of people counted as poor and the more different they appear to be, the more the problem can be dismissed as a problem that afflicts only a small minority of people who are responsible for their condition. If the poor consist of only a relative handful of individuals who "look different" and "act different," then it's fairly easy to argue that they merely need to learn how to "learn the ropes" and "adjust" in order to avoid poverty.
Moreover, if the poverty line is relatively low, it's easier for elected officials to claim major progress in reducing poverty than is the case with a higher poverty line. To cut the poverty rate in half from 20% to 10%, as allegedly happened from 1962 to 1973, according to the government's definition of poverty, is more impressive than is merely reducing it from 45% to 33%, which is what actually happened.
In these ways, defining poverty carries with it major political ramifications. These consequences of undercounting the poor need not be intentional; they could simply result from honest mistakes. But the history of the official definition of poverty, as described in Chapter Four, suggests that cynical political calculations did influence the final official definition of poverty. It's quite clear that when the executive office established the Orshansky index as the official measure of poverty in 1969, that office had available to it a much more credible alternative: the Bureau of Labor Statistics Lower Family Budget. But if this definition of poverty had been adopted, more than twice as many Americans would have been counted as poor and it would have been more difficult for elected leaders to claim success with their antipoverty programs.
Given these underlying political calculations, it
is no surprise that when the National Academy of Sciences
issued its 1995 report recommending raising the poverty line,
The New York Times reported, "the forthcoming report
seems unlikely to be embraced by the Republicans
who now control Congress."
Despite the impeccable credentials of the panel that concluded
that the official poverty line is too low, Republican legislators
realized that an increase in the number of people officially counted
as poor would not strengthen their attempt to cut back government
programs for the poor. In this way, the definition of poverty
remains a political football. The Republicans want to count less
people as poor to justify reducing antipoverty programs. The
Democrats want to count a few more people as poor
to justify small-scale programs that at least do something to
address the problem. But neither party acknowledges the complete
reality; to do so would highlight the need for greater change
than either party is willing to discuss.
Isabel V. Sawhill, "Poverty in the U.S.: Trends, Sources, and Policy Implications," Social Insurance Update No. 25, National Academy of Social Insurance, September 1992, 1.
Hugh Brogan, The Penguin History of the United States of America, Penguin Books, 18-9.
Max Weber, Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press, 78.
George, Henry WashingtonGeorge Washington: The Man Who Wouldn't Be King," David Sutherland, producer, WGHB Education Foundation and WNET/Thirteen, 1992.
Brogan, The Penguin History of the United States of America, 122.
Richard Gross, "Tyranny's Threat To Our Planet," San Francisco Examiner, 5 May 1992, A14.
Brogan, The Penguin History of the United States of America, 198.
Jacqueline Jones, The Dispossessed: America's Underclass from the Civil War to the Present, Basic Books, 14.
Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, Harper & Row, 127.
Brogan, The Penguin History of the United States of America, 394.
Zinn, A People's History of the United States.
J. Philip Wogaman, Christian Perspectives on Politics, Fortress Press.
Edmund S. Morgan, "The Fixers," The New York Review, 2 March 1995, 25-27.
Letters and Other Writings of Madison, 350-3.
William E. Schmidt, "Once Chosen, Tribal Elites Now Suffer Consequences," The New York Times, 17 April 1994, Week in Review, 3.
Malcom Gladwell, "The Road to Homelessness, Paved With Good Intentions," The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 2-8 May, 1994, 31.
Derrick Bell, "The Freedom of Employment Act," The Nation, 23 May 1994, 710.
Roger Wilkins, "Dream Deferred But Not Defeated," The Nation, 23 May 1994, 715.
Carla Marinucci, "School for Johns," San Francisco Examiner, 19 April 1995, C1/C3.
Nicholas Lemann, "The Unfinished War," The Atlantic Monthly, January 1989
Governor Pete Wilson quoted interview on KCBS, San Francisco, 20 July 1995, following an anti-affirmative action by the University of California Board of Regents.
Roger Wilkins, "Dream Deferred But Not Defeated," The Nation, 23 May 1994, 717.
Beck, "Loser," Mellow Gold, Cyanide Breathmint Music/BMG Songs, Inc., 1994.
Michael Kinsley, "Class Warfare? Tell Me About It," Time, 6 February 1995, 80.
Sam Fulwood III, "Gap Grows Between Black Middle Class and Those Mired in 'Poverty," Study Find," Los Angeles Times, 9 August 1991, 27.
Quoted on "All Things Considered," National Public Radio, 8 April 1994.
Linda Gordon, "A Right to Live," The Nation, March 7, 1994, 310.
"Haitians Don't Compromise," The New York Times.
"Jackson Assails Report of Fewer Tuition Grants," San Francisco Chronicle, May 28, 1991.
Henry Stern, "In the Contest for Nation Wealth, the Poor Fail to Fight," San Francisco Examiner, 6 February 1994, A12.
Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You, 12.1, 1983, tr. Aylmer Maude, 1936.
Pope Leo XIII, De Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Workers), 15 May 1891.
Robert Pear, "Proposed Definition of Indigence Could Expand Number of Poor," The New York Times, 30 April 1995, A1/A15.