Obama did have a set of policies directed at poverty: the issue is confronted here.
That said, poverty was not an issue he talked about during his campaign. The reason, I think, is the same as the reason he did not talk about cities. "Urban," he and his staff felt, has become a code word for "black, dangerous, dysfunctional" (I have it on good authority). So, instead of approaching urban problems directly, his policies will try to help cities through the impact of other programs, such as infrastructure and job creation. The same is undoubtedly the case with poverty. It is noteworthy that after John Edwards dropped out of the primaries, neither Clinton nor Obama ever talked about poverty. Edwards was brave to base his campaign on it, and he won a lot of favor among liberal academics. But poverty is a non-starter as an issue. Poor people's problems don't mobilize the mass of voters.
Historians do not make good forecasters, and we shy away from predictions. Now, especially, with the economy in shambles, I am even more uncertain about the future than usual. But here is how I read the situation.
The 1996 welfare legislation cemented a new line between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. It uses work as the cut. The non-working poor are the undeserving poor, more than ever. They have been modestly helped by policies, such as Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and other measures. The non-working or dependent poor have received nothing, and nobody seems to care about them. The men among them are given a roof and meals in prison. The other group to emerge as a branch of the undeserving poor are undocumented, or, as they are called, illegal immigrants. The depth of hatred toward them is amazing and frightening.
My guess is that Obama will continue in the same directions as Clinton took. That is, he will focus mostly on the working poor by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and through universal health care – which they need desperately, and are more likely to get than at any prior time in American history.
The very poor, ironically, are somewhat better off if they qualify for Medicaid, despite all the problems with the program. He may help the working poor, as well, by raising the minimum wage and through job creation programs tied to infrastructure and "green" technologies. These would be immensely helpful both to cities and to individuals. All the evidence shows that a tight labor market is the most effective anti-poverty measure.
Obama will also use his bully pulpit to talk about "responsible fatherhood," in ways that no white person could get away with. And his platform calls for emulating Geoffrey Canada's comprehensive approach in Harlem in 20 more cities. That would be the most direct avenue toward acting on concentrated poverty he is likely to take, if funds persist. I haven't examined Canada's program, Harlem Children’s Zone, in enough depth to evaluate it. The history of past comprehensive initiatives is not encouraging. But perhaps Canada has found a way to avoid their mistakes.
Note that Obama has said nothing about welfare. My guess is that he will not consider repealing the 1996 bill, which is generally touted, out of all proportion, as a great success. I do think, and hope, that he might be persuaded to nibble away around the margins at its worst features, such as the exclusion of most forms of education as work.
Michael Katz
