Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTaking to the Streets for the Poor
Last week, I participated in a day-long downtown Indianapolis fast and demonstration asking Senator Bayh to join Senator Lugar in co-sponsoring the Global Poverty Act and Jubilee Act. By committing the U.S. to help reduce extreme poverty and cut the debt burden of struggling countries, these two pieces of legislation would address the obscene fact that 16,000 children die each day simply because they are poor.
We took to the streets in the hopes of educating Hoosiers about global poverty. As it turned out, we were the students, too. Even in the age of blogs, Facebook and cell phones, there are still a few lessons best understood by talking with people face-to-face.
We learned about messaging. Some people we spoke with about our issues gestured to the homeless people sitting near our vigil on west Market Street, and asked, "What about the poverty here at home?"
With deeds instead of words, most of the activists at our demonstration eloquently answer that question every day. The folks who held signs asking Senator Bayh to help hungry children in Haiti and Kenya also volunteer at the local food pantries, care for the sick, and empower the struggling right here at home. Responding to domestic and global poverty is not an either-or proposition, and that message has particular credibility when it comes from those who work for justice and peace every day in Indiana.
Of the few thousand passers-by we approached with our signs and flyers over the course of the day, most were courteous and welcoming. A comparative few had their personal spam filters turned on high, and were suspicious or even hostile. Perhaps because of a richer cultural history of advocacy for social justice, people of color were the most likely to accept our outreach and engage in discussion.
We learned about politics, too. Few passers-by were previously aware of the legislation we promoted, but many were unsurprised by the contrasting positions of our Indiana senators. Senator Lugar provided early and vocal leadership on the poverty bills, but Senator Bayh has sat on the fence. In response to over a thousand letters by Hoosiers on this legislation, Bayh has responded by offering neither support or opposition, or even an explanation for failing to take a position.
That didn't seem to surprise the folks we spoke with. White-haired men in dark suits, women pushing baby strollers and young men walking to the Illinois Street bus stop all shook their heads and offered variations on the same observation: "Bayh doesn't take a stand on anything." It was a ground-level echo of the verdict widely pronounced by national and local pundits, but we hope our junior senator defies that reputation by becoming a leader in fighting poverty.
Finally, we learned about grace. Several people passed by, accepted a flyer and walked on, only to double back a few minutes later to offer sincere thanks to demonstrators for speaking out for the least of our brothers and sisters. A political science teacher took photographs to show her class that citizen participation in government isn't limited to complaining about our own property taxes or 401(K)'s. The many kind "God bless you's"' we received made less positive reactions fade into the background.
In the short term, only Senator Bayh knows what effect our day of fasting and marching may have had. But activists learn to live by the adage that even the Grand Canyon was built a drop of water at a time. And on the Market Street sidewalk, I learned to treasure the act of walking side-by-side with Hoosiers aged 7 to 78, all standing up for a cause greater than themselves.
9 Comments so far
Show All"...also volunteer at the local food pantries, care for the sick, and empower the struggling right here at home." That's good, and it makes people feel better when they donate time or goods, but it is not the answer to US poverty. We need a legitimate social insurance policy -- yes, that dread word, "welfare". Not everyone can work, and there aren't enough jobs for all who can. US poverty, particularly since 1980, is a very complex issue made much worse by our punitive treatment of the poor. At best, charities reach only a small portion of the poor; there are more rural than urban poor, and these people often don't have access to food pantries, or any other sort of charity.
We have people trying to survive in abandoned barns and in the woods, praying they don't get busted (vagrancy, trespassing) and have their children taken from them ("failure to adequately provide", a very vague measure included in the '96 welfare "reform" package), or freezing to death. When the
economy tanks, and need is the greatest, donations are the fewest. And no one should be reduced to having to beg for food.
It takes government to assure that resources are distributed equitably, and that the appropriate types of help are made available. We've given corporations billions of dollars of tax breaks over the past 30 years, always on the theory that this money would go into "creating family supporting jobs". Instead, they've crushed unions, broken US jobs down into part-time, bottom wage labor and used the money to move our jobs to foreign countries. Add in a range of factors, from unaffordable higher education (vital to obtaining a family supporting job)to our health care crisis to the reality that crime/prison is increasingly often the only option that people have for obtaining shelter, food, medical care, and job skills training.
The "free market", private charities and those elusive faith-based programs fall grievously short of meeting the needs of our poor. The old welfare system, with all its warts, did indeed work. It was a ladder out of poverty; in fact, some 80% of AFDC recipients voluntarily quit welfare for work in under 5 years. AFDC, the largest program, used (at its greatest) some 6% of the budget. It kept families together, and provided the economic stability vital to enabling the poor to work their way out of poverty. Recipients then became taxpayers, repaying all the aid they had received via their own taxes. Today, every American who is middle class or poorer is walking a tight-wire without a safety net.
Quigley is going to come to mean "good activism" the way Quisling has come to mean "quisling during WWII:going along with occupation". I am thinking of Bill Quigley and Fran Quigley.
A couple of reporters from newmatilda.com, an Australian online magazine are trekking across the US to cover the election. If you are bored with just a local view it might be worth a read. They cover homelessness early.
http://newmatilda.com/2008/10/07/down-and-out-santa-barbara
In an age of globalization we live the paradox of distant "developing" countries being of equal concern to home town issues, and at moments, of greater concern. We eat, wear, use the fruits of the millions of jobs comming back to this market - and with these, innumerable human lives.
The World Socail Forum 2009 has begun to post.
I just saw a quote from Congresswoman Kaptor (?) Ohio that sums it up.
"Pray for our Republic, it's been placed in uncaring and greedy hands"
Bayh (D) is as bad as Lugar (R). In fact, their positions are quite similar.
Bayh was an early supporter of the idea of removing Saddam from power.
In 2001, he voted yes to ease wiretapping restrictions.
On October 2, 2002, Bayh joined President George W. Bush and Congressional leaders in a Rose Garden ceremony announcing their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, and was thanked by Bush and Senator John McCain for co-sponsoring the resolution
In 2006, he voted yes on a flag-burning constitutional amendment.
In 2007, Bayh "supported the Kyl-Lieberman amendment
The senator also stated his support for increased foreign aid to Israel.
Failed to support legislation to shut down Guantanamo.
Blocked stem cell research.
Refused to support contraceptive distribution.
Refused to support the repeal of the Military Commissions Act.
Continued to support civilian-blasting cluster bombs.
Voted for the Protect America Act, a bill which temporarily permitted the U.S. government to spy on its citizens and search their communications without the judicial warrant that the Fourth Amendment so clearly requires.
This year, Evan Bayh cheerily voted for the FISA Amendments Act, its four-year extension.
Bayh: "It is a dangerous world — 3,000 Americans were killed on September 11th. Suicidal terrorists have pledged to attack again — and they have in London, Madrid, Amman, Bali, and across Iraq. North Korea has expanded its nuclear arsenal. Hamas will soon be in charge of the Palestinian Authority. And the radical leader of Iran who is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons — has pledged to destroy Israel and asked his people to imagine a world without the United States"
Before we start getting all mushy and cuddling up to the poor, shouldn't we wait and see if the SPLURGE is effective??
Better yet, try to act now to stop the Splurge from taking place. Cindy Sheehan is trying to get an injunction to prevent it. She needs plaintiffs though, such as Senators Lugar and Bayh, who both voted nay. People in Indiana need to contact them to let them know. (Senator Bayh: bayh.senate.gov, (202) 224-5623, fax: (202) 228-1377; Senator Lugar: lugar.senate.gov, (202) 228-0360, fax: (202) 228-0360))
"shouldn't we wait and see if the SPLURGE is effective??"
Darn, that is great, wish I'd thought of that.