War on Poverty or a War on Oppression?

President Lyndon Johnson declared a War on Poverty with some significant successes, but the War did not abolish poverty in these United States of America. Cynics said that poverty won the war. The well meaning War on Poverty did not result in an unconditional surrender by poverty. Why? It did not declare war on oppression and the rich. The biblical teaching is that the rich oppress the poor. None of the 2016 presidential candidates is likely to declare War against Oppression nor a War against the Rich. Both Democrats and Republicans are too American to take such a revolutionary position.

Early in the 2016 presidential campaign, there are signs that poverty/inequality will be a major issue. Already, Mitt Romney has raised the issue. Since nearly half of the U.S. population is either poor or near poor, poverty/wealth should be a central issue. Senator Elizabeth Warren declares, "The system is rigged." Not in favor of the poor.

Probably many of the proposed ideas, Republican and Democrat, would do some good, but beware of smooth talk and ask some tough questions.

1. Has the candidate ever lived among the poor for a period of time---ala John M. Perkins and CCDA (Christian Community Development Association)? Some good personal friends, Phil and Marsh Reed, have lived and ministered in West Jackson, Mississippi for around 40 years; through thick and thin, they have stayed and ministered. Lee Harper had a golden opportunity to leave her poverty-stricken, racist Mississippi, but she decided to stay in West Jackson and be a reconcilier.

2. Have any of the candidates, some of whom publicly profess to be Christian, made a thorough study of the biblical teaching on poverty, oppression, the rich, and justice? Romney profess to be a devout Mormon; Ryan, a devout Catholic; Huckabee, a devout evangelical; Clinton, a faithful Methodist. Are their ideas on inequality biblically informed or ideologically founded?

A War on Poverty or a War on the Poor?
A War on Poverty or a Skirmish on Poverty?
A War on Poverty or a War on Oppression?
A War on Poverty or a Flood of Justice?

Throughout its history, America has generally taken a pro-rich and anti-poor stance. Supposedly the rich create wealth and the poor are lazy, dysfunctional, social parasites (47 percent are takers). The good news: Americans have given lots of charity to the poor, and occasionally they have enacted major reforms on behalf of the poor such as food stamps, Medicaid and Medicare. The bad news: poverty and oppression are widespread in 2015.

Few Americans have taken a "Blessed are the poor. . . . Woe to the rich" stance. Few Christians understand the biblical teaching on oppression or justice or the kingdom of God here on earth. A Luke/Jesus perspective might look like this:

A War on the Rich Oppressors: release the oppressed poor.
A War on the Rich Oppressors; a flood of Jubilee justice for the oppressed poor.
A War on the Rich Oppressors; respect/honor for the oppressed poor.

In Luke, the rich are identified as THE social problem, not the poor.

But I suppose Jesus is somewhat suspect. He was well-informed on ethics but apparently not on economics. Any red-blooded America knows that it is capitalism that produces abundant goods and wealth; then the surplus wealth trickles down to the poor. The hard working rich are the key to reducing poverty.

Next, some ideas stimulated by reading Jennifer Harvey's book Whiteness and Morality (2007). As a Christian ethics scholar, she regards justice as the heart, the norm of ethics. In the past and presently, the injustice/justice has been the close relationship between the idolatry of whiteness and oppressive morality it spawns. Can whites who are white supremacists (in one way or another 99 and 44/100 of whites are white supremacists or benefit from white supremacy) critique/analyze white supremacy? Or are we too ethnocentric to do so?

So far, American history teaches us that from President Lincoln on down, we are too enculturated to do so. Only the Holy Spirit, the Word of God and some transformational experience can do so. I suggest living in an oppressed poor community for several years; also attend an ethnic or multiracial church. Most white history, sociology and theology are too slanted, too biased to be of much help. Even so-called Christian colleges and seminaries may do more harm than good unless you can find that rare enlightened professor.

Harvey emphasizes that white supremacy is multi-faceted; I agree. MLK emphasized the trinity of racism, militarism and capitalism. Some scholars emphasize the race, culture and religion combination found in WASPs. I emphasize the American trinity of hyperindividualism, hypermaterialism and hyperethnocentrism. White supremacy always has a strong economic oppression component; in the U.S., capitalism is implicated. White Christians must be extremely careful not to skip over quickly whiteness/white supremacy and rush on to cheap reconciliation, justice or Christian Community Development. Harvey does her Christian ethics from a justice and a liberationist perspective.

A few quotation from Whiteness and Morality:

Creation though "deeply broken" is "imbued with an incompressible and intimate presence of divinity." "No one is free if any is oppressed." "The United States was birthed through the imperialism of European expansion." "To be white in the U.S. is to be in moral crisis."

But if most whites believe they are right, superior and God chosen, there is no perceived moral crisis, nothing to repent of. Old Testament Israelites thought that they were OK since they were God's chosen, but they failed to repent and were sent into judgment.

According to Luke, the poor have many problems, but, contrary to popular opinion, they are not the problem in society. Instead, the rich are THE social problem. In the U.S., the blacks are considered to be the social problem; in reality white oppressors are THE social problem. If you are poor and black, you are doubly oppressed, doubly cursed.

Rich whites must repent and do justice. But do superior people ever feel the need to repent? Much like the Pharisees, no. The Pharisees were highly religious but they neglected justice and the love of God.

Though there is incessant cultural propaganda that poor blacks are the problem, the real truth is that rich whites are the problem. When was the last time you ever heard/saw the media highlight the rich whites as the brutal oppressors. Probably the media runs 10 to 1 poor blacks when it should be 10 to 1 rich whites. Who controls the media? Rich whites. Even NPR and PBS are guilty. Poor blacks sell and use drugs versus the truth that whites equally use and sell illegal drugs. Due to racial profiling, poor blacks fill our prisons. Poor blacks are on welfare versus the truth that rich whites received massive subsidies and tax loopholes.

A few years ago, my home state of Iowa, full of good-hearted and salt-of-the-earth people, had a 2 and 24 problem, the worst black-white incarceration ratio in the nation. Blacks were being incarcerated at 12 times the rate of whites in Iowa, mostly for drug offenses. But around 6 percent of each population are into illegal drugs. There was no massive church, media or public outcry at this oppression, this miscarriage of justice. In fact, Iowa has just finished building a new prison whereas Texas has stopped building new prisons.

Iowa has improved slightly; it is now only third in the nation, not first for the worst incarceration ratio. Recently the head of Iowa's Supreme Court publicly noted the bad incarceration ratio in Iowa. But the Iowa Supreme Court has not ruled that the current incarceration ratio is wrong or unconstitutional or cruel and inhumane punishment. In effect, our criminal justice system is still built upon the Dred Scott decision---that blacks are second class citizens, if, legally, they are citizens at all.

Did the U.S Supreme Court make its Dred Scott decision based on the Constitution? If so, the Constitution is deeply flawed. If not, it made its decision based on racist public opinion. On page 189, Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, makes the following analysis of Supreme Court decisions:

"The parallels between mass incarceration and Jim Crow extend all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the years, the Supreme Court has followed a fairly consistent pattern in responding to racial caste systems, first protecting them and then, after dramatic shifts in the political and social climate, dismantling these systems of control. . . . In Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Supreme Court immunized the institution of slavery from legal challenge on the grounds that African Americans were not citizens. . . . Currently, McClesky v. Kemp and its progeny serve much the same function as Dred Scott and Plessy. In McClesky, the Supreme Court demonstrated that it is once again in protection mode [protecting unjust mass incarceration which is based heavily on racial profiling]. . . . The new racial caste system operates unimpeded by the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights legislation---laws designed to topple earlier systems of control. The Supreme Court's famous proclamation in 1857---"[the black man] has no rights which the white man is bound to respect"---remains true to a significant degree today, so long as the black man has been labeled a felon."

We could probably add male to rich white---a triple oppression. And far too often, we could add religion. Religious, white, rich males running our church, our government, our economic/financial systems as systems of oppression.

Will the religious, rich, white males repent and do justice? I don't see any mass movement of repentance. Most rich, white males, and especially the religious one, arrogantly rationalize their oppression, often misusing scripture to do so. The self-righteous, religious oppressors are not known for humility and repentance; God's chosen ones have no need for repentance.

In Iowa, they seem to be everywhere, in small towns and in big cities; they attend church, worship God, and neglect biblical justice.

Some people accuse poor blacks of being takers, social parasites. Actually the opposite is true. The religious, rich, white males are the real social parasites, the takers par excellance:

* takers: massive federal subsidies, generous tax breaks.
* rapers: of society which is their playground; often they don't pay a living wage.
* riggers: of the political and economic systems.
* crushers: of the poor.
* damagers: the social damage of oppression usually precedes social dysfunction.

But the rich cleverly accuse the poor of being the takers; of being welfare cheats, criminals and dysfunctional.



PS

The following is from an editorial in the January 29, 2015 Mason City Globe Gazette, "ALICE shows working poor aren't making it."

In 1963, Mollie Orshansky developed the federal government's poverty guidelines. Based on her formula, the 2015 "poverty threshold for a family of four is $24,250."

Now a new formula has been developed by Rutgers University and United Way. "The idea was to estimate the actual cost of household survival budgets for five basic necessities: housing, child care, food, health care and transportation. It measures employment income as well as help from government programs and charitable aid." The acronym is ALICE. "In the six states surveyed in 2012---California, Indiana, Michigan, Florida, New Jersey and Connecticut---at least 35 percent of families were living under ALICE thresholds. They comprise 8.7 million working poor families on top of the 4.3 in those states officially living in poverty." So the current federal poverty index severely underestimates the extent of poverty in these United States of America.

If a person would add the near poor to the working poor and the welfare poor, the U.S. could end up with 45 to 50 percent of the U.S. population in or near poverty. Romney's 47 percent as 'takers' is close the the actual number of poor and near poor.

There is one simple step which could be taken, and has been taken by Aetna Insurance Co., which could make a huge dent in the problem if all corporations would do the same. "Two weeks ago, Aetna's CEO, Mark Bertolini, announced that the minimum wage for company employees would be raised to $16 an hour. The move will benefit 12 percent of Aetna's employees and cost the company $14 million in the first year. But it could also reduce the company's annual turnover cost of $120 million. Higher wages can yield better, more loyal employees."