

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
About a month ago, I had the opportunity to spend a weekend at Harvard with a group of about 20 scholars and reporters. Many of them have worked for decades examining poverty-related issues--from hiring discrimination to segregation in housing and education, criminal justice reform to immigration, deep poverty to homelessness.
About a month ago, I had the opportunity to spend a weekend at Harvard with a group of about 20 scholars and reporters. Many of them have worked for decades examining poverty-related issues--from hiring discrimination to segregation in housing and education, criminal justice reform to immigration, deep poverty to homelessness.
I was nervous about the trip. The combination of the venue--and the fact that I had long-admired many of the participants--led me to double-check the invite to make sure I was the intended recipient. For sure, I was the guy. So, even though my mother insisted that I needed new shoes to set foot on that campus, I packed my scuffed-up loafers with their separating soles and flew to Boston.
I'm not sure exactly what I expected, but it wasn't this.
There was some consensus around a handful of policies that would lead to greater progress in the fight against poverty--more affordable housing and access to cash assistance, a fair wage and affordable childcare, public schools that aren't separate and unequal, substantial investment in disadvantaged communities. But there was a question that took me by surprise. Even though they had devoted their lives to fighting poverty, some of the participants asked whether their work made any difference at all.
More pointedly, a few asked how their work can help make people in power--particularly white people--do something about poverty.
The fact is, people in power don't take action unless they are pushed by a movement. Civil rights, women's rights, and marriage equality all required movements. Recent legislative victories such as passing the Affordable Care Act, winning $12 to $15 minimum wages, and implementing paid sick and family leave at the state and local level--all of these were made possible through movement-building at the grassroots too. And so whether we work as reporters, researchers, advocates, or elected representatives, if we want to cut poverty in America then a key question is whether our work lends itself to building an anti-poverty movement--a movement that is desperately needed.
Despite the recent progress noted by the Census, there are still 43 million people who are officially poor. Nearly half of us are living paycheck-to-paycheck, unable to come up with $400 should an emergency arise.
There are signs of a nascent anti-poverty movement.
With such widespread economic hardship, it's not surprising that the people with the most immediate stakes in the fight against poverty--the poor and working class--are beginning to take action. There are signs of a nascent anti-poverty movement--from Occupy Wall Street to the Fight for $15; from the Dreamers to Black Lives Matter; from Bernie Sanders' rise as a viable presidential candidate, to the spread of Moral Mondays, to Climate Justice.
Reporters, researchers, and others invested in this fight have the power and the resources to support these efforts. Together, our analyses can offer a portrait of who is poor and why, and explore the public policy implications; we can lift up voices and lives that are normally ignored or caricaturized by the media; we can include people living on the brink in high-profile events that explore poverty and in our advocacy efforts.
We are too often failing at this. When then-House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan held a series of five hearings on the state of the War on Poverty, 17 witnesses testified--but only one (called by the Democratic Minority) lived in poverty. A recent, all-day Brookings event on the lessons of welfare reform featured 25 speakers, but only two people of color and zero people in poverty. And at strategy meetings among well-resourced, allied NGOs, poor people are heard from far too infrequently.
This exclusion of people in poverty is not only strategically stupid--would you talk about the impact of farm policy without talking to farmers?--it also reinforces a stigma and sense of shame among people who are struggling. We are implying that they don't matter, that they have nothing to offer, that they are flawed, that they should remain on the sidelines while more "respectable" or "respected" people make the decisions that affect their lives--and that's a message people in poverty have been hearing loud and clear for generations.
But by simply writing or speaking the truth about poverty, we help to create a platform where struggling people can be heard; and by fighting back against the shame and stigma of poverty, we play a small role in empowering people in poverty to take action politically.
So does the work of researchers and writers and advocates matter? It sure does--especially if that work is opening new spaces for an emerging movement to grow.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
About a month ago, I had the opportunity to spend a weekend at Harvard with a group of about 20 scholars and reporters. Many of them have worked for decades examining poverty-related issues--from hiring discrimination to segregation in housing and education, criminal justice reform to immigration, deep poverty to homelessness.
I was nervous about the trip. The combination of the venue--and the fact that I had long-admired many of the participants--led me to double-check the invite to make sure I was the intended recipient. For sure, I was the guy. So, even though my mother insisted that I needed new shoes to set foot on that campus, I packed my scuffed-up loafers with their separating soles and flew to Boston.
I'm not sure exactly what I expected, but it wasn't this.
There was some consensus around a handful of policies that would lead to greater progress in the fight against poverty--more affordable housing and access to cash assistance, a fair wage and affordable childcare, public schools that aren't separate and unequal, substantial investment in disadvantaged communities. But there was a question that took me by surprise. Even though they had devoted their lives to fighting poverty, some of the participants asked whether their work made any difference at all.
More pointedly, a few asked how their work can help make people in power--particularly white people--do something about poverty.
The fact is, people in power don't take action unless they are pushed by a movement. Civil rights, women's rights, and marriage equality all required movements. Recent legislative victories such as passing the Affordable Care Act, winning $12 to $15 minimum wages, and implementing paid sick and family leave at the state and local level--all of these were made possible through movement-building at the grassroots too. And so whether we work as reporters, researchers, advocates, or elected representatives, if we want to cut poverty in America then a key question is whether our work lends itself to building an anti-poverty movement--a movement that is desperately needed.
Despite the recent progress noted by the Census, there are still 43 million people who are officially poor. Nearly half of us are living paycheck-to-paycheck, unable to come up with $400 should an emergency arise.
There are signs of a nascent anti-poverty movement.
With such widespread economic hardship, it's not surprising that the people with the most immediate stakes in the fight against poverty--the poor and working class--are beginning to take action. There are signs of a nascent anti-poverty movement--from Occupy Wall Street to the Fight for $15; from the Dreamers to Black Lives Matter; from Bernie Sanders' rise as a viable presidential candidate, to the spread of Moral Mondays, to Climate Justice.
Reporters, researchers, and others invested in this fight have the power and the resources to support these efforts. Together, our analyses can offer a portrait of who is poor and why, and explore the public policy implications; we can lift up voices and lives that are normally ignored or caricaturized by the media; we can include people living on the brink in high-profile events that explore poverty and in our advocacy efforts.
We are too often failing at this. When then-House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan held a series of five hearings on the state of the War on Poverty, 17 witnesses testified--but only one (called by the Democratic Minority) lived in poverty. A recent, all-day Brookings event on the lessons of welfare reform featured 25 speakers, but only two people of color and zero people in poverty. And at strategy meetings among well-resourced, allied NGOs, poor people are heard from far too infrequently.
This exclusion of people in poverty is not only strategically stupid--would you talk about the impact of farm policy without talking to farmers?--it also reinforces a stigma and sense of shame among people who are struggling. We are implying that they don't matter, that they have nothing to offer, that they are flawed, that they should remain on the sidelines while more "respectable" or "respected" people make the decisions that affect their lives--and that's a message people in poverty have been hearing loud and clear for generations.
But by simply writing or speaking the truth about poverty, we help to create a platform where struggling people can be heard; and by fighting back against the shame and stigma of poverty, we play a small role in empowering people in poverty to take action politically.
So does the work of researchers and writers and advocates matter? It sure does--especially if that work is opening new spaces for an emerging movement to grow.
About a month ago, I had the opportunity to spend a weekend at Harvard with a group of about 20 scholars and reporters. Many of them have worked for decades examining poverty-related issues--from hiring discrimination to segregation in housing and education, criminal justice reform to immigration, deep poverty to homelessness.
I was nervous about the trip. The combination of the venue--and the fact that I had long-admired many of the participants--led me to double-check the invite to make sure I was the intended recipient. For sure, I was the guy. So, even though my mother insisted that I needed new shoes to set foot on that campus, I packed my scuffed-up loafers with their separating soles and flew to Boston.
I'm not sure exactly what I expected, but it wasn't this.
There was some consensus around a handful of policies that would lead to greater progress in the fight against poverty--more affordable housing and access to cash assistance, a fair wage and affordable childcare, public schools that aren't separate and unequal, substantial investment in disadvantaged communities. But there was a question that took me by surprise. Even though they had devoted their lives to fighting poverty, some of the participants asked whether their work made any difference at all.
More pointedly, a few asked how their work can help make people in power--particularly white people--do something about poverty.
The fact is, people in power don't take action unless they are pushed by a movement. Civil rights, women's rights, and marriage equality all required movements. Recent legislative victories such as passing the Affordable Care Act, winning $12 to $15 minimum wages, and implementing paid sick and family leave at the state and local level--all of these were made possible through movement-building at the grassroots too. And so whether we work as reporters, researchers, advocates, or elected representatives, if we want to cut poverty in America then a key question is whether our work lends itself to building an anti-poverty movement--a movement that is desperately needed.
Despite the recent progress noted by the Census, there are still 43 million people who are officially poor. Nearly half of us are living paycheck-to-paycheck, unable to come up with $400 should an emergency arise.
There are signs of a nascent anti-poverty movement.
With such widespread economic hardship, it's not surprising that the people with the most immediate stakes in the fight against poverty--the poor and working class--are beginning to take action. There are signs of a nascent anti-poverty movement--from Occupy Wall Street to the Fight for $15; from the Dreamers to Black Lives Matter; from Bernie Sanders' rise as a viable presidential candidate, to the spread of Moral Mondays, to Climate Justice.
Reporters, researchers, and others invested in this fight have the power and the resources to support these efforts. Together, our analyses can offer a portrait of who is poor and why, and explore the public policy implications; we can lift up voices and lives that are normally ignored or caricaturized by the media; we can include people living on the brink in high-profile events that explore poverty and in our advocacy efforts.
We are too often failing at this. When then-House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan held a series of five hearings on the state of the War on Poverty, 17 witnesses testified--but only one (called by the Democratic Minority) lived in poverty. A recent, all-day Brookings event on the lessons of welfare reform featured 25 speakers, but only two people of color and zero people in poverty. And at strategy meetings among well-resourced, allied NGOs, poor people are heard from far too infrequently.
This exclusion of people in poverty is not only strategically stupid--would you talk about the impact of farm policy without talking to farmers?--it also reinforces a stigma and sense of shame among people who are struggling. We are implying that they don't matter, that they have nothing to offer, that they are flawed, that they should remain on the sidelines while more "respectable" or "respected" people make the decisions that affect their lives--and that's a message people in poverty have been hearing loud and clear for generations.
But by simply writing or speaking the truth about poverty, we help to create a platform where struggling people can be heard; and by fighting back against the shame and stigma of poverty, we play a small role in empowering people in poverty to take action politically.
So does the work of researchers and writers and advocates matter? It sure does--especially if that work is opening new spaces for an emerging movement to grow.