[Aren't liberals smart to talk in shorthand about "hunger," instead of about junk food and bad nutrition?--ed. I say no. Like talking about "kids," talking about "hunger" scores well in polls but avoids the complicated reality of poverty. Antipoverty activists defended the welfare system for decades by talking about "kids" and ignoring the problem of subsidizing single-motherhood. What all that "kids" talk got them was welfare reform and a GOP Congress. I think focusing deceptively on "hunger" is a similarly misguided strategy, even on liberals' own terms (i.e., the truth would encourage more government antipoverty expenditures).
No one can be seriously opposed to helping the truly needy in this country, but when the definition of needy is adjusted to meet another agenda, well, it is unfair to all involved. The truly needy may get neglected because the "not so needy" stand in their way...
Remind me again - what's the exit strategy for the "war on poverty?" Billions and billions...
No comments:
Post a Comment