Today’s Democrats see themselves as a fancy party that relies on evidence – wherever it can lead. That is why they invest heavily in science and technology and use the government’s weapons to turn that knowledge into action. But despite claiming to prioritize new ways of improving our society, Democrats do not always work at the core of research.
Indeed, sometimes they actively refrain from doing what the evidence says – especially when it comes to implementing policies that give financial benefits to fewer people in America’s social totem pole. It’s not always loud, but the reality is that some Democrats and American voters in general don’t think too much of poor people or people of color – there are countless examples of how society is quick to dehumanize them and how politicians struggle to meet their needs in a meaningful way. . Such thinking and misleading depictions of marginalized populations often imply that the principles that can help them the most are repeatedly opposed.
This opposition, of course, is seldom made in the face of animosity or hostility towards a particular group. Instead, it is often framed as “rational”, such as adhering to “financial conservatism”, especially among GOP members who have long adhered to petty-government views. But some Democrats aren’t really that different. Consider President Biden’s reluctance to cancel student loans, or the federal government’s reluctance to provide free community colleges, or Sen. Joe Manchin’s recent opposition to the inclusion of child tax credits in the Build Back Better Plan, because low-income people use drug money. . Indeed, politicians across the political spectrum have found a number of scapegoats to use when arguing against the expansion of social security nets, including playing with Americans’ fears about rising inflation rates. As a result, various programs that would help people – such as the poor and people of color – have been banned.
What’s interesting, though, is that if you actually look at most social science research, invest in the social security net. Financially responsible – It pays big dividends for both the individual and our collective society. Economists have studied it for decades, discovering that anti-poverty and cash-aid programs performed both in the United States and abroad are associated with increased labor participation in the workforce, while investing in childcare benefits not only for children, but for the wider economy and society. Is raised in them. In addition, new initiatives such as the cancellation of student loans could add 1.5 million jobs and lift 5 million Americans out of poverty and free many Americans from the debt trap that is contributing to a backward housing market and causing ethnic expansion. Resource gap. Other research suggests that students who are plagued by student debt may be more likely to get married or have children if their arrears are forgiven.
That is the proof. Yet, instead of acting in it, there is a tendency to highlight stories and trolls about people who could ruin their invested resources. And this is often enough to weaken public and political support for these policies. So what we’re seeing today from some “moderate” Democrats is probably born out of an innate distrust if you just To give Money or help people through expanded social safety net.
But if we look at the distant past – less than a hundred years ago, in fact – we quickly see that Democrats have not always opposed the distribution of money to support the welfare of Americans. In fact, former Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt Roosevelt introduced security-net programs as Oprah would give up her favorite things. In response to the Great Depression, Roosevelt oversaw the massive expansion of the social security network in the 1930s and 1940s, including grants to states to compensate for unemployment, support dependent children, and provide financing for business and agricultural communities. Recognizing the importance of a safety net to protect people from the “uncertainty caused by unemployment, sickness, disability, death and old age”, the federal government also created social security, which at the time was crucial to economic security. And in the 1960s, long after the end of the Great Depression, the government created the Medicare program for the same reason under former President Lyndon B. Johnson, another Democrat.
What is clear from these examples is that the federal government once realized the importance of a strong protection net for health, well-being and the greater functioning of our society. Caution, however, does not extend our thinking about this general perception All American; The government supported these policies when most of the beneficiaries were white. But when people of color begin to actively use and benefit from these same programs, they become harder to achieve and, in some cases, become clearly racist.
This was especially true in the 1970s and 80s when conservative and right-wing political candidates insulted Americans about welfare. During his inaugural presidential race, Ronald Reagan will tell stories and give numerous stump speeches centering on Linda Taylor, a black Chicago-area welfare recipient, known as the “Queen of Welfare.” To provoke anti-government and anti-poor sentiment within his base, the then-future Republican President villain Taylor claimed that he used “80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers, social security, veterans” to collect food stamps. Benefits for the four non-existent elderly husbands, as well as welfare “as a signal that certain Americans – such as Rangin – are gaming the system to gain some advantage from the federal government. But Reagan was not alone. Indeed, his stern stance on so-called welfare fraud and government spending on social programs overshadowed the conservative critique of big-government liberalism at the time.
Democrats were no different. Former Democratic President Bill Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare” in the 1990s included conditions for a certain percentage of welfare recipients to work or participate in job training. This, in turn, helped nurture a belief that there were people who followed the rules and those who did not (such as black Americans). And once politicians (blacks) begin to worry about people taking advantage of the system, it becomes more difficult to meet the requirements for certain social and financial benefits.
But all these underlying statements about reducing government waste by suppressing marginalized people are not scrutinized when examining the evidence. The reality is that fraud is extremely rare among the beneficiaries of the Social Security perimeter, and much less expensive for society, say, tax evasion among the richest 1 percent. Yet instead of helping the poor, we spend incredible amounts of money to catch and punish them.
Moreover, the poll shows that Americans – especially Democrats – want to expand the social security net irresistibly. According to a 2019 poll by the Pew Research Center, most Democrats and Democrats are at-risk (59 percent) and 17 percent are Republicans and Republicans-at-risk that the government should Payment More Help people in need. Even this October, when Democrats were discussing the size of the Universal Build Back Better Act, a CNN / SSRS poll found that 75 percent of party voters (and 6 percent of Republicans) liked that Congress passed a bill that expanded. Social security nets and formulated climate-change policies.
However, while many Americans want to expand the Social Security perimeter, these programs are often difficult to sell to voters – especially if they are associated with a large policy package (such as Obamacare) or someone disliked by voters (such as former Democratic President Barack Obama). Consider that a Politico / Morning Consult survey late last year found that only 39 percent of Americans who received a child tax credit said it had a “major impact” on their lives. In addition, only 38 percent of respondents credited Biden for implementing the program.
Many expansion of the Social Security perimeter is not initially popular, making it easier for Democrats to return to the stories people tell themselves about different groups of people and whether they deserve help. And sometimes, these images affect our concerns about the members of that group and the explanations we make for why they feel the consequences of life. As with previous extensions to the social safety net, people in the United States have not always been allergic to paying, but now this unspoken idea seems to be that poor people and people of color cannot be trusted to spend “free” money or government aid is good.
This thinking, however, creates a problem for Democrats because, over the years, they have identified themselves as a party that promotes common good through the advancement of ethnic, economic and social justice. At the same time, they are failing in their campaign promises to expand the social security net despite a long and difficult struggle to get them into office, despite being very poor people and people of color. Many Democrats today are still trapped by the old trap of who gets or deserves government benefits, which is dangerous because it pushes people out of their “moral circle” – members of that group. People have a moral obligation to help what they think is right.
Of course, breaking this chain of thought will not be easy because it will break the long-standing mentality of Democrats that poor people are in their current situation because of a series of “unfortunate” choices. Republicans need to stop worrying about how they can falsely rearrange social security net programs as dangerous, especially because of the ongoing concerns about inflation and the economy during the COVID-19 epidemic. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter: although politics may not be immediately advantageous and the effects of these programs are not immediately apparent, it is not necessarily a reason to delay their implementation. Focusing only on short-term effects is not only short-sighted, it is dangerous. And if the Democrats refuse to act, they will lose more than their base support.