Did Peter Edelman Just Present An Anti-White Narrative In The Middle of His “Let’s End Poverty” Article? Yes, I Think He Did!
Peter Edelman – typical hard-core liberal
Article in Question: “Why Can’t We End Poverty?”
Overview of Article:
Talks about how the number of people living in poverty has increased. Praises policies that have been put into place over the years to provide support for people in living in poverty.
Then, he expresses wonderment as to why greater success has not been achieved in overcoming poverty and provides his version of explanations in answer to this question. Note his expressed sense of bewilderment that people are actually willing to work for low wages. (This really bothers Mr. Edelman…he mentions it several times in his article….because if people would stop working for low wages, then the government would have a legitimate basis to dictate an increase in wages that meets their standards of “good-paying jobs”!)
With all of that, why have we not achieved more? Four reasons: An astonishing number of people work at low-wage jobs. Plus, many more households are headed now by a single parent, making it difficult for them to earn a living income from the jobs that are typically available. The near disappearance of cash assistance for low-income mothers and children — i.e., welfare — in much of the country plays a contributing role, too. And persistent issues of race and gender mean higher poverty among minorities and families headed by single mothers.
Edelman says nothing about the fact that our welfare programs aren’t really designed to help people rise above poverty, especially now that President Obama took away work requirements. Our welfare system works more like a doctor treating symptoms rather than actually trying to find a cure. All it does is helps to alleviate the symptoms of poverty. Nothing more and nothing less. Edelman doesn’t address how this might be changed.
He sets the premise for 99% versus the 1% closing argument. Talks about how grateful we should be for food stamps.
Then, we get to the comments in question….
Race and gender play an enormous part in determining poverty’s continuing course. Minorities are disproportionately poor: around 27 percent of African-Americans, Latinos and American Indians are poor, versus 10 percent of whites. Wealth disparities are even wider. At the same time, whites constitute the largest number among the poor. This is a fact that bears emphasis, since measures to raise income and provide work supports will help more whites than minorities. But we cannot ignore race and gender, both because they present particular challenges and because so much of the politics of poverty is grounded in those issues.(emphasis mine)
Did everyone catch that?
In plain English language rather than liberal-speak, he’s saying “There is a disproportionate variance according to percentages, but in consideration of the population ratios, there are still more poor white people than there are poor people of other races. Whether liberals like it or not, poor white people can receive government support, too. But they can get around this and help direct more funds into populations of race by putting emphasis on race and gender!”
Did I miss something? Doesn’t living in poverty mean exactly that? And aren’t public funds assigned for the so-called “common welfare” to be used for that purpose,regardless of race?
Another part of Mr. Edelman’s liberal meanderings that really bothers me is the message that it conveys to women of race. More or less what he tells them is that if you’re a black or Hispanic woman (or any other color than white)…you are DOOMED to live in poverty. You get that? Doomed. Don’t even try to change your circumstances because you aren’t capable of succeeding!
Mr. Edelman concludes his article with typical liberal flare for the dramatic…dreaming about the “good old days” of the Great Depression and what he calls the “Progressive Era”, talking up the civil rights movement, than calling for a “power to the people” populist charge against the 1%.
Like I said at the beginning…typical hard-core liberal.