news-record.com

OPINION

Leonard Pitts Jr.: Breeding contempt for the poor

Monday, February 1, 2010
(Updated 3:00 am)

If he'd said it of Jews, he would still be apologizing.

If he'd said it of blacks, he'd be on BET, begging absolution.

If he'd said it of women, the National Organization for Women would have his carcass turning slowly on a spit over an open flame.

But he said it of the poor, so he got away with it.

"He" is South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, running for governor on the GOP ticket. Speaking of those who receive public assistance, he recently told an audience, "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."

You read that right. The would-be governor of one of the poorest states likens the poor to stray animals.

And though it drew some newspaper notice, a riposte from "The Daily Show" and rebukes from Bauer's opponents, it never quite rose to the level of national controversy, as it would've had Bauer compared, say, women or Jews to the dogs one feeds at one's back door. The relative silence stands as eloquent testimony to the powerlessness and invisibility of the American poor.

One is reminded how earnestly shocked news media were at the poverty they saw five years ago when New Orleans drowned. "Why didn't they get out?" observers kept asking -- as if everyone has a car in the driveway and a wallet full of plastic.

The poor fare little better on television. The Evanses of "Good Times" and the Conners from "Roseanne" aside, television has been heavily weighted toward fresh-scrubbed middle- and upper-class families for 60 years.

Politicians? They'll elbow one another aside to pledge allegiance to the middle class; they are conspicuously less eager to align with those still trying to reach that level.

Who, then, speaks for the poor? Who raises a voice when they are scapegoated and marginalized? Who cries out when they are abused by police and failed by schools? Who takes a stand when they are exploited by employers and turned away by hospitals?

As near as I can tell, no one does.

Unfortunately, poor people have never learned to think of and conduct themselves as a voting bloc. Historically, they have proved too readily divisible, usually by race. As Martin Luther King once observed: "If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the Southern aristocracy took the world and gave the "poor" white man Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man."

It takes some helluva psychology to get two men stuck in the same leaking boat to fight one another. You'd think their priority would be to come together, if only long enough to bail water. But the moneyed interests in this country have somehow been able to con the poor into doing just that, fighting tooth and nail when they ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder.

One hopes Andre Bauer's words will provide a wake-up call -- in South Carolina and elsewhere -- for people who have been down too long and fooled too often, that it will encourage them to organize their votes, raise their voices, push their issues into the public discourse. In America, one is invisible and powerless only so long as one chooses to be.

And the Bauers of this world need to know: Sometimes stray animals bite.

E-mail: lpitts@miamiherald.com

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Get A Clue

February 1, 2010 - 6:19 am EST

I believe Mark Twain noted that God must surely love the poor because He created so many of them.

Think about that before you shoot from the hip, commenters.

Sawdust

February 1, 2010 - 7:35 am EST

A word in defense of the poor in New Orleans, with no car and little or no cash: What they did have was a whole parking lot full of busses which were, according to the city's own emergency evacuation plan, to be used to get out of Dodge. They also had Mayor Ray "School Bus" Nagin, whose duty was to implement those plans and get the poor out of danger. Instead, we saw the pictures of them sitting in several feet of water after the storm had passed.

Ray Nagin, the second line of defense for the poor, the first being themselves, failed his people. Now, maybe if Nagin was white, or Hispanic, or Asian, or Republican, he would have received the criticism he deserved for being derelect in his duties. But he is black, so Bush got all the criticism, especially from Leonard Pitts and every Democrat on the planet. Years later, mention Katrina and what comes to mind is that Bush failed.

You see, Leonard, it works both ways.

JGALT

February 1, 2010 - 7:55 am EST

I have never seen the cowardice displayed by Ray Nagin during Katrina, in any official before or since, played out in real time as the crisis developed. His dereliction of duty was rewarded by a "voting bloc of the poor", when he should have been prosecuted.

Nagin, refused to act, the Louisiana governor refused to act, and Bush called for evacuation as soon as it was apparent the Louisiana yahoos were derelict. This happened in succession, covered live as the storm approached.

Sawdust

February 1, 2010 - 9:30 am EST

I will always remember tuning in to "Meet the Press" shortly after Katrina struck, a few minutes into the program. The guest was a black man, and listening to the interview, I was trying to decide if he was a drug dealer or a pimp, and wondering why he was on "MTP". That's just the impression I got from listening to him. Then he said something about waiting for the Cavalry to arrive, and it dawned on me that he was the good Mayor of New Orleans. As far as I know he never once took any responsibility for his failure, and he certainly never got any criticism from the moonstream media; they saved it all for Bush.

J.M.W.

February 1, 2010 - 6:20 pm EST

Yeah, Nagin lied when he said, "they're raping babies in the Superdome." It reminded me of the Kuwati princess who said Iraqi soldiers were dumping incubated infants on the floor. She got her war and he got a week at Motel 6 with a white woman for a week. Whatever it takes...

JGALT

February 1, 2010 - 7:44 am EST

"poor people have never learned to think of and conduct themselves as a voting bloc". Pitts chooses to ignore Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and the war on poverty whose do gooder social policies created the disincentives to family cohesion and caused the dissolution of poor families. Bill Clinton was instumental in seeing this destruction and undoing part of this welfare mentality. Government had destructive effects on poor families by providing handouts for more and more children provided there was no father in the home. Personal responsibility, accountability, and initiative are values that should have been encouraged instead.

OneVoice

February 1, 2010 - 9:34 am EST

As I began to read Mr. Pitts' essay, I just knew he was going to blast John Edwards for his reported comment about rednecks at the state fairs in Andrew Young's book. While the comments of the SC Lt Governor are certainly galling, where is the outrage at Edwards, who claimed to stand up for the poor, but in reality held them in contempt? For that matter, where is Mr. Pitts' contempt for the race monger Skip Alston, who throws down the race card whenever he cannot get his way using adult negotiations; who drives around in his big car, and has fed at the trough of public money for years while claiming to represent the "disenfranchised" black people of Greensboro. If the black community in Greensboro is disenfranchised, it is because people like Leonard Pitts, Earl Jones and Skip Alston have persuaded them that most, if not all, Republicans and whites are bad, trying to keep them down. In reality, how long have Mr. Jones and Mr. Alston been singing that song, and how much better off are the black and poor people of Greensboro under their leadership. Witness Mr. Alston's recent behavior regarding the downtown hotel. How much of the money he stands to make will be reinvested in the black community? Just enough to buy the franchise is my guess. He will throw them just enough crumbs to keep them following him, all the while making sure he gets maximum press for "all he has done." Mr. Pitts, save your indignation for local and state matters and leave SC to the SC press.

wscbd

February 2, 2010 - 11:31 am EST

Um... you're aware that Pitts writes for the Miami Herald, right? Not the News & Record.

Voice of Reason

February 1, 2010 - 10:15 am EST

Hmm. I was going to comment on this, but it looks like all the right things have been said. ;-)

rwbr

February 1, 2010 - 2:53 pm EST

The manner used by Lt. Gov, Bauer to express himself sure is atrocious, but if you are able to think objectively and review the evidence, you should be able to conclude that there is a very strong correlation between government payments to the poor and the rate of poverty. Increased government payments always increase the number of people on the dole; government payments have since 1965 distorted and maintain the rate of poverty at ~12%; government payments, far from preventing people from going into poverty provide them with a level of comfort that makes it “affordable” to be poor. Until government stops encouraging people to depend on others for their support, the poverty rate will not drop and Liberals will continue exploiting the poor for their own purposes.

There certainly always be poor people among us, and we must help the truly needy. Yet true justice demands able-bodied individuals suffer the consequences of their actions or inactions when they are unwilling to support themselves and when they continue to make self-destructive choices.

Panacea

February 1, 2010 - 5:57 pm EST

*sigh*

The issue of poverty is too complex to be rendered to simplistic solutions such as "irresponsibility" or "leech" or "enabler."

There are a lot of people who are poor. Most of them are hard working folk who do not take government handouts. They don't deserve to be dismissed this way. There for the grace of God go you.

Some of the comments about the poor on this site are Exhibit A for what Pitts was trying to say.

lilbean

February 1, 2010 - 6:29 pm EST

but then again panacea there are people who are born, live and die without working a day. living their entire lives on the public buck. and please, don't compare or contrast them to the rich. the richest man in the world leaves the way he came in.
many resent the poor because they see them as offering nothing. all that is done is taking, rarely if ever giving anything back. i had to stay at the salvation army long ago, broke and homeless. it was "required' that you give something back. even if it simply picking up trash outside the shelter. to many these days think some one owes them something. that thet deserve to be taken care of. wrong. its easy. if you ask someone to help, they most likely will. if you force them, the become resentful. bad days coming panman, get ready.

Panacea

February 2, 2010 - 9:33 am EST

Why shouldn't I compare them to the rich? Your idea that rich men leave the world the way they came in is patently false.

Owners of big sports teams get big bucks from local communities, money that does not flow back into the community. They get help from local governments to seize private property to build their stadiums, where fans are repeatedly ripped off.

But the vast majority of poor WORK, or want to work. They serve in the military. They flip your burgers at McDonalds. They dig ditches and build our roads. They pick up your garbage.

I resent corporate welfare far more than welfare for the poor, because the rich don't need it.

I do agree that welfare programs should not be life long; and they aren't anymore. Haven't been for 10 years. The idea of the welfare queen was a myth perpetuated by Reagan to score political points. Could the law do a better job of rooting out fraud? Sure it could. But they do nail people who abuse the system.

Why do you say "bad days are coming?" From what?

Oh, btw, you do recall that I am female?

Gymnaseum

February 1, 2010 - 6:39 pm EST

To OneVoice: Pitts is a nationally syndicated columnist, not local to the News and Record. Hence, he is well within his purview to cover SC comments.

To the raft of indignant middle-class boors who seem to agree with the SC Lt. Gov. that the poor are precisely like stray dogs: how about admitting the middle-class in this country are like selfish apes, randily cheating on their spouses and lusting for more than their neighbors? Or that the rich are like fat hogs? That's the level of inanity and offense that the Lt. Gov. has vomited forth.

Voice of Reason

February 1, 2010 - 7:36 pm EST

You know, some of you are ridiculous. I find it odd that even though the SC Governor mentioned nothing about race, you are acting like he has. I grew up poor. What we had we had because my parents worked very hard and were wise about saving and spending money. This is a lost art. I deal with the poor every day at work, and I see how the new poor live and what the new poor consider a requirement to live. People who are truly poor and who deserve compassion do not spend money on frivolous items like alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana. Yet the new poor are seldom without these items, forgoing food, car seats for their children, and housing for these "necessities." I see this, and it angers me, because people like myself, who are very nearly poor and at best lower middle class, pay taxes so these leeches, for there is no better word, can live a lifestyle the champions of the poor never intended.

To be sure not every poor person lives this way, just as, Gymnaseum, not every person in the middle-classes acts "like selfish apes, randily cheating on their spouses and lusting for more than their neighbors." You might be surprised to find that many of these lower class poor are more concerned with these frivolities than the middle class, breaking into houses and cars in their own neighborhoods rather than those of the rich, cheating on their wives and girlfriends at a substantial rate. And again, not all rich live like fat hogs, and the ones who do won't be rich very long.

The Welfare system in this country is flawed. The goal of any such system, be it the Salvation Army or Government Assisted Housing, should be to ween the client off said system so that they may provide a home and life for their families without being a burden on the rest of society. No one should spend an entire lifetime on this system- if they do, it means failure at many different points. This is what the SC Governor is referring to- those who cannot and will not do anything for themselves and who expect the Government to provide everything they need forever. The way to stop this is to stop pandering to them. Make them HAVE to get off their backsides to eat and for shelter, and most ultimately will. This who won't, well, there is no helping them. But don't condemn those who know these truths to be true because they appear to lack compassion. The truth is, we know that sometimes, the ONLY way to help people, is to let them help themselves.

OneVoice

February 1, 2010 - 9:47 pm EST

Well said! Our backgrounds appear similar, and I concur completely with all you said.

Conundrum

February 2, 2010 - 7:45 am EST

VOR, I have an issue with your post. You state that "I find it odd that even though the SC Governor mentioned nothing about race, you are acting like he has." You should have seen that coming. There are those who at the very mention of welfare or entitlement automatically think "welfare queen-black woman." I think it is residue left over from the Reagan years. If I am not mistaken, one key point of welfare reform that took place under Pres. Clinton was a maximum time of two years for receiving funds. One also had to be looking for work during that period. In terms of sheer numbers, there are more whites who receive some form of "cash assistance/relief" from the government. I think that the figure stands at around 25, 000,000 or so. Though percentage wise, there are more African Americans who are on government assistance. Also, since there are more African American families that are classified as poor, in terms of financial guidelines set by the government, there would be more receiving some assistance. Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis “found that 90 percent of black children will be clients of the national Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamps) at least once by the time they turn 20.” Can you imagine? You should read Barbara Ehrenreich and her research on the working poor.

What I find especially galling about those who criticize those African Americans who are on relief, is the fact that they lose sight of the importance that race played in creating in effect, what is an uneven playing field. You can’t deny others access to education and employment for 300 plus years and expect that their boats will have risen to your level. There are those whose sense of entitlement is skewed. After all, it was those from their group, who historically imposed a lot of the roadblocks and hurdles that limited the earning potential of a lot of these poor families. And, you don’t have to look very far to see how a group can be ravaged by the draconian treatment meted out by others, i.e., Native Americans. They face a myriad of problems that can be traced back to how they were treated. Let’s not gloss over the root cause.

wtcarlis

February 3, 2010 - 12:42 pm EST

What the governor said is not true of all poor people, but it is true of some. It is also true of GM and AIG. I view their executive bonuses the same way I view the welfare recipient's cell phone, cigarettes, and beer.
What you said about helping others by making them help themselves is fully accepted by the PC police as a parenting philosophy, but for some strange reason they reverse themselves when you suggest the same approach to their clientele. Bottom line is that there is no socialism, just taxpayer supported capitalism. If you are in the welfare business, it is "conservative" to be "liberal".

britboy

February 1, 2010 - 10:20 pm EST

I agree that the comments made by the S.C. Lt. Gov. were inapprppriate, but until our government implements some time constraints on receiving assistance, the problem will continue. What incentive do the people that are on the receiving end have to get off of assistance? They don't have to work and still have a place to live and food to eat. If the government was to implement a time limit of 1 year maximum to receive these benefits, then they would have to get a job, any job, in order to provide for themselves and better their situation. Even in todays economy, there are jobs out there. They may not be what one wants to do for a living, but at least it is a job and income coming in. A few years back, I was in line at the grocery store and the customer was a young lady no more than 20 years old. She was informing the cashier that she was 3rd generation to be receiving assistance and that she was already starting to teach her kids about it. Of late, the things that I see while waiting in line at the store are people using EBT to purchase prime cuts of meat, large party trays, and large sheet cakes that cost up to $50. I work and struggle to provide a place to live and food on the table. They are eating better than anyone that I know! It used to be that this was the exception, but nowadays the exception is the person receiving assistance and using it wisely. Sadly, I blame this on our government for allowing the abuse of the system to get out of control. I do agree with Voice of Reason in that, sometimes, one can only help a person by letting them help themselves.

mamaboilermaker

February 2, 2010 - 8:01 am EST

People can be assisted in two basic ways, which I call 1. hand holding and 2. butt kicking. The person with sudden catastrophic illness or disability, the widow, the orphan need someone to hold their hand and help them to cope with their struggles. The unrepentant drug addict, the chronic alcoholic, or the person rebelling against all decent rules of conduct needs their butt kicked. The key is to identify which type of help a person needs and to provide that help.

To provide hand holding when butt kicking is called for is just as wrong as butt kicking a person who needs hand holding. Government is unable or unwilling to make important distinctions between helping people and enabling destructive behavior. A kid who skips class or starts a fight needs his butt kicked, while a kid with dyslexia needs his hand held. A lazy person needs his butt kicked (incentive to work) while an unskilled person who wants to learn should have his hand held (via education.) Quit kicking the poor who work hard and quit holding the hands of those who think they are here on earth to be served by those who work.

Panacea

February 2, 2010 - 9:43 am EST

Drug and alcohol addiction is a disease. It needs treatment, not condemnation.

Addicts cannot receive government assistance directly. It has to go to a responsible person in an effort to keep the money from being used to buy drugs/alcohol. I've heard many addicts complain about this; it does have some impact. So a lot of addicts steal to feed their habits.

A 28 day program is not long enough to help an addict. It gets you sobered up but doesn't address the deeper underlying issues behind the addiction. Long term residential treatment works best. Sometimes the courts do have to sentence addicts there, and that does work.

People with disabilities like dyslexia, a physical disability, orphans, and widows don't want their hands held. They want to earn whatever they have. I have many students who are dyslexic or have other learning disabilities who refuse evaluation to see if they qualify for testing accomodations or other programs--they refuse out of pride. They don't want to be seen as weak. These are smart kids who can do the work, who are putting the effort in, who just need a little extra help to be successful.

What defines someone as lazy? You toss that term about, but you don't say what it means? Who decides when a person is being lazy and not trying, or when they just can't make the effort no matter how hard they really are trying?

Walk a few miles in the shoes of some of these people. It's so easy to condemn the unsuccessful as "lazy" "immoral" "loser." Our society hates losers, we condemn them and throw them to the wolves. We've lost our ability to come together as communities because we ostracize those who don't fit our image of what successful should be.

mamaboilermaker

February 2, 2010 - 10:22 am EST

Don't lecture me. I'm the daughter of an alcoholic. By butt kicking I mean tough love. It's hard work to take away the car keys, refuse to loan money, let them wallow in their own mess until they WANT help. And until they WANT help, you can't help them.

By hand holding I mean help appropriate to the situation--I certainly apologize if I gave the wrong impression about that. The child with a learning disability should receive appropriate help in the form of modified or extra instruction. The child with an "attitude disability" needs to be made uncomfortable enough that he will want to change, not coddled, excused and accommodated so that he never adjusts to the standards of civil society. The hard-working poor need encouragement and applause, while the jerk on the sofa living off his latest girlfriend's food stamps needs a literal kick out the door so he will grow up.

Butt kicking defined: caring enough to make somebody experience the consequences of his/her bad choices so he/she will see the need to make better choices.

Hand holding defined: caring enough to walk alongside somebody who sincerely wants help

I can't exactly define lazy, but I know it when I see it.

countryboy

February 2, 2010 - 9:56 am EST

Mr. Pitts fails on at least two journalistic points:

#1. What does he mean by "poor".

#2. Why it is bad to be poor.

I would speculate...and I would be correct, that the number of residents in Old Irving Park (New Irving Park does not count...it's a debt/income ratio thing) per capita who are on anti-depressants far exceed that of the less afluent neighborhoods.

There is an extreme difference between being poor and being destitute. And Mr. Pitts is incorrect when he states that no one speaks for them. As long as our church exists, no one in this area will be destitute, as long as we know about it.

But the larger issue here is the accuracy of the Lt. Governors comment. Mr. Pitts does not address that. Is it accurate or not? He only addresses what many of us would see as a poor metaphor. But this is America 2010. The PC police have much more influence than the real police...and Mr. Pitts is their Chief.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search