While the nation peers into the face of an economic depression, religion’s usually prominent issues are being challenged by poverty during the Presidential election. Similar to Jerry Falwell’s slogan of “get them saved, baptized and registered” in her news article Religion today
, Julie Smyth illustrates how church leaders such as Jesse Jackson are attempting to “register high school seniors to vote” and let their voices be heard for their school and communities. The similarity to Falwell dissipates as the motivation for these votes surfaces: where Falwell committed the previously untouched voting bloc of evangelicals to support “family values,” Jackson urges the youth “to pick candidates who will fight poverty” and “seek justice” for the cities poor.
In the 1970’s, the Republican party exulted in abundance of new “value voters” and angled polices towards the emerging demographic. However: despite the “20,000 Vote Out Poverty pledges” and apparently large potential voting pools, Jackson say there is “little evidence candidates care.” Knowing that poverty is an overtly tangible and applicable issue to this election, it seems odd the candidates embody a “sense that everyone is middle class” and neglect the demographic whose children go to school without “reading glasses… hearing support or dental care.”
While Churches and Reverends are pushing teens to vote for poverty conscience candidates, the utility of this voting bloc may lay in its ability to transcend “party lines and denominations” and reach a more common public. This mini movement is uniting Episcopalians, Methodists, conservative Evangelicals and Baptists in a “manner many say they have not seen.” The versatility of this trend, and its importance to numerous Americans, questions why candidates are hiding behind tax cuts and underplaying the need for accountability and correction of the largest national deficit ever seen. The unity of poverty stems from its truly blind application. No matter race, gender, religion or class, poverty feels the same, and many people of this nation are feeling its presence. If the Presidential candidates don’t see the value in unifying Democrat, Evangelical, Republican and Methodist, perhaps they can see the simple need to pull the nation out of poverty.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_re/rel_religion_today
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I like the connection Becca draws here between Falwell and Jackson—it is one that I did not immediately recognize. This article points out some interesting oddities when it comes to candidates' treatment of poverty, and the Duke professor's statement that, "There's this sense that everyone is middle class, and let's dare not talk about poor people," is particularly disheartening. It is strange how (aside from John Edwards perhaps) all of the candidates involved currently (or in the past) with the election talk at length about the middle class but barely dedicate any time to the truly impoverished. I don't have a good explanation for why they do this, but it is interesting and quite telling of our national priorities nonetheless.
I like the ring of, "poverty is an overtly tangible applicable issue to this election," and I agree that the millions in poverty do seem ignored in this country more so than in other Western democracies. The US has the worst infant mortality rate in the Western world, the highest population of those living without health care, and also the highest costs of post-primary education. All of these issues seem to, as you point out, transcend any and all religious missions and it's baffling as to why most religious folks swing towards the right. And I think you pointed to exactly why--parties are bundling their values with distinctive religious group values in attempts to win their support. This tactic has been employed by both parties and is, frankly, an embarrassment to everyone involved--the parties, the religious groups, and the political system of the US in general.
The candidates attempt to reach the middle class and their "neglect of the demographic whose children go to school with out 'reading glasses..hearing support or dental care'" is likely because these individuals less likely to vote than the middle class. It is not unusual for political candidates to shape their message and campaign around those individuals who they believe they will have the most success in getting to the polls. These individuals are more likely to vote based on issues such as tax cuts and the treatment of the national deficit. In a political world consumed with the appeal to NASCAR dads and soccer moms is it all that unusual that candidates are preoccupied with looking to the individuals who will likely vote?
Additionally, Poverty has only unifying and universal appeal in theory, in the pragmatic application of the idea people are largely divided on how to help individuals who live below the poverty line. What kind of assistance do we give? Where do we find the funding for this aide? Who administers this assistance, do we ask the local, state or national government to assist? While no one (or very few) may argue that poverty is good or a desirable state for individuals to exist in, disagreement over what to do about the poverty problem is widespread.
Post a Comment