Whose fault is poverty? Is it the fault of the poor themselves, who should be working harder, making better decisions, and committing to their own futures? Or of society at large, for failing to provide the resources, jobs, and opportunities needed to alleviate poverty?
This question — culture versus economics — lies at the heart of a deep political divide on how to tackle poverty. It was a critical issue in this week’s event involving President Obama, along with Robert Putnam, Arthur Brooks, and our own EJ Dionne, at Georgetown on Tuesday. (You can watch it online here).
Obama’s “both/and” approach to poverty
Although there was inevitably disagreement on the panel, one shared message was the need for a “both/and” perspective rather than an “either/or” view of poverty. It is a mistake to see poverty as a solely economic concern and ignore the role of culture, norms, and character and a mistake to do the opposite.
As President Obama put it at yesterday’s event: “I am all for values; I am all for character … [But] because of no fault of those kids, and because of history and some tough going, generationally, some of those kids, they’re not going to get help at home. They’re not going to get enough help at home. And the question then becomes, are we committed to helping them instead?”
There is a finely calibrated balance between individual and collective responsibility. Society has a collective responsibility to create opportunities for the least advantaged; the individual has a responsibility to take them. President Obama himself has been one of the most outspoken politicians on issues such as parental responsibility, especially fathering.
Economic gaps = empathy gaps = economic gaps
Putnam’s book is called “Our Kids” for a reason: he is hoping to evoke a sense of broader responsibility, to see the children of the poor as “ours,” rather than “theirs”. One of the problems here is a failure of imagination. It is sometimes difficult for the affluent to understand the texture of poverty, since they don’t interact with poor people. Economic sorting at the neighborhood level leads to social sorting in terms of schools, churches and community groups. As Putnam puts it, “Our kids are increasingly growing up with kids like them who have parents like us.” This represents, he warns, “an incipient class apartheid.”
With fewer social ties and connections between the haves and have-nots, it becomes harder for people to see themselves in the others’ shoes: the economic gap becomes an empathy gap. When social ties weaken, stereotypes flourish.
The whole truth on poverty
As the great British liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill noted (OK, yes, I’m his biographer), when people disagree it is rare that one is wholly right and the other wholly wrong. Usually they “share the truth between them.” Perhaps yesterday’s conversation will go some way towards seeing the whole truth on opportunity in America and therefore towards some more concerted bipartisan efforts to improve it.
The market access negotiations [of the Trans-Pacific Partnership] have been conducted bilaterally, so there is a fair amount of bilateralism embedded in the [TPP] agreement, but then you had all the benefits of multilateralism added to that in terms of rules that apply across the board. The problem with the bilaterals is we actually have tried that approach and we found that it is extremely time-consuming. So, none of these new bilaterals being discussed in the Trump administration are going to materialize overnight. They take a lot of time to negotiate—years, probably—and they tend to generate rules that are idiosyncratic.
If we [the United States] have less access to these [international] markets, we're going to have fewer opportunities to create jobs in the export sector. Also, if we decide to tax imports, there are a lot of people in this country dependent on imports and we're also going to see people lose their jobs.