An Awesome Argument

Today, David Brooks produces a glittering soroptimistic toe flutter. In an article to criticize John Edwards, he says John Edwards talks about poor people as if all they need is jobs and more money.

It used to be, he says, that liberals said that poverty could be treated by more money, and conservatives said that poverty resulted from culture. Brooks goes on to state that the welfare reforms of the 1990s have demonstrated that poverty can be treated by demanding cultural change -- graduate high school, wait until you're married to have children, hold down a full time job (doing whatever) and you will not be poor. Working mothers, he says, have made big gains since the 1990s, although they are having a hard time getting into the middle class; some support programs are needed, but the conservatives basically had it right: just demand responsibility and people will no longer be poor.

Then comes his stabs into Edwards: "All of this is absent from the world Edwards describes on the campaign trail."

In other words, Mr. Brooks -- you are on a completely different subject from Mr. Edwards. You are talking about how to treat poverty. What Mr. Edwards is talking about is how to avoid pushing millions of Americans into poverty -- to keep manufacturing in the US to provide employment for all the working mothers for whom you're interested in providing babysitting for (incidentally, I know a few such working mothers who can use your free babysitting -- I'll give them your phone number).

On second thought, this is not an impressive argument. Brooks is just using classic "define your adversary before he defines himself". Brooks is attempting to force the argument into the area of poverty because that's where he can make a strong argument ("ha ha! Conservatives were right on welfare reform and you 'give money to the poor' types were wrong!"). Where he can't make a strong argument is in the battlefield Edwards has staked out: American jobs are disappearing to overseas, and the Bush Administration has failed to create the 2M new ones they promised in the last campaign, failed even to stem the shutdown of our employment economy in which 3M jobs have been destroyed.

So we can argue about the best way to treat poverty Mr. Brooks, because Mr. Bush's policies are pushing millions of American families into poverty, and they're going to eventually need the benefit of your expertise on poverty. Right now, though, the conversation is on how to stop Bush from shoving of millions of Americans into poverty. Care to join in? Or are you only interested in treating the patient after he's already dead?