Reflections on Poverty, by America, by Matthew Desmond (Revised)

By Bob Gordh

As a socialist, I wholeheartedly support Matthew Desmond’s campaign, of which writing his recently published book Poverty, by America is a part, to completely eradicate poverty in the U.S. Why is this goal so important? Desmond explains why, partly by making it crystal clear that the poor are not to blame for their poverty, partly by giving the pertinent statistics about the magnitude of the problem, but most importantly by writing with great compassion and eloquence about the painful and diminished quality of life that poor persons must endure. Here is a series of statements, on each of which Desmond elaborates, that powerfully convey how tragically grim a life of poverty can be:

Poverty is pain, physical pain…. Poverty is the colostomy bag and wheelchair, the night

terrors and bullets that maimed but didn’t finish their cunning work. Poverty is trauma…. Poverty is instability…. Poverty is the constant fear that it will get even worse…. Poverty is the loss of liberty…. Poverty is the feeling that your government is against you, not for you; that your country was designed to serve other people and that you are fated to be managed and processed, roughed up and handcuffed. Poverty is embarrassment and shame. Poverty is diminished life and personhood.

Desmond does not, of course, neglect to point out that poverty can also mean a lack of such basics as food, water, and shelter, especially for the almost 18 million residents of the U.S. who suffer from what he calls “deep poverty.”

Does the U.S. have the resources with which to abolish poverty? In such a wealthy country the answer has to be yes, but Desmond finds a particularly striking way of demonstrating just how emphatic this “yes” must be. Having estimated the price tag of ending poverty at $177 billion, he goes on to point out that that amount of money could be raised by the sole expedient of putting an end to tax fraud. (And he recommends that Congress give the IRS funding and a mandate to do just that.) That’s how inexpensive it would be to end poverty! “The goal,” as Desmond puts it, “is irresistibly attainable.” (125)

Of course, Desmond has plenty of additional recommendations. “The low hanging fruit,” he suggests, “is to make sure low-income Americans get connected to the aid for which they qualify.” (122) To this end, when such commonsensical measures as cutting red tape, notifying eligible folks more frequently and by a variety of means, and making assistance in filling out applications much more readily available, the results have been extremely positive. In Oregon, for instance, through the use of such strategies, “virtually everyone who is eligible for the [food stamp] program enrolls in it.” (122)

Desmond has no truck with the notion that poor people cause their own poverty. The question he addresses is how “we,” those who are not poor, make poor people poor. In 3 main ways, he maintains: “First, we exploit them. We constrain their choice and power in the labor market, the housing market, and the financial market, driving down wages while forcing the poor to overpay for housing and access to cash and credit.” (120) “Second,” we prioritize the subsidization of affluence over the alleviation of poverty.”

Third, we create prosperous and exclusive communities. And in doing so, we not only create neighborhoods with concentrated riches but also neighborhoods of concentrated despair — the externality of stockpiled opportunity. Wealth traps breed poverty traps. The concentration of affluence breeds more affluence, and the concentration of poverty breeds poverty. (121)

How can we, as a nation, turn from making the poor poor to getting rid of poverty altogether? Desmond provides an exceedingly well-thought out, multifaceted answer to this question. His recommendations include, but are not limited to, raising the minimum wage (by a lot), building a much more generous safety net for those who are unable to work, providing universal healthcare, controlling housing costs, providing generous tax credits to childcare providers, taxing the rich at much steeper rates, aggressively prosecuting those (especially large corporations) who commit tax fraud, forbidding predatory lending, and requiring inclusionary zoning (as opposed to merely forbidding exclusionary zoning). I find especially inspiring and encouraging Desmond’s call for a “new economy” with “new labor law.” “New labor, he declares, “must be inclusive and anti-racist, empowering workers young and old, including those bending in our fields, waiting on our tables, cleaning our homes and offices, and caring for our old and sick.” (141) As a means to achieving a dramatic increase in unionization, Desmond calls for laws that permit and encourage “sectoral bargaining” in which organizing happens not on a worksite-by-worksite basis but at the level of entire sectors of the economy. “Sectoral bargaining,” Desmond says, would impact tens of millions of Americans who have never benefitted from a union of their own, just as it has improved the lives of workers in Europe and Latin America.” (142)

In my view, Desmond’s case for the view that poverty in the U.S. can and should be abolished is entirely convincing. One question that arises at this point is: “Why hasn’t it been?” Although Desmond recognizes and critiques the role that meritocratic pro-capitalist propaganda plays in making extreme economic inequality palatable to most of the general public, he thinks the most important “explanation for why we accept the current state of affairs” (101) may be simpler and more sobering: “We like it.” (101) There is righteous anger and moral indignation, as well as causal analysis in this claim. Desmond’s call for a mass movement for the abolition of poverty has much in common with co-leader of the Poor People’s Campaign Rev. William Barber’s call for a moral awakening in this country — and Desmond does mention Barber with approval and admiration. I admire Desmond’s moral fervor (and Barber’s as well). “[P]overty is an injury, a taking Desmond states. “Tens of millions of Americans do not end up poor by a mistake of history or personal conduct. Poverty persists because some wish and will it to.” (40)

*****

The abolition of poverty would obviously be cause for great celebration for all of those who were previously poor. At the same time, it would be a tremendous victory for the left, since it would represent an enormous movement, in all kinds of ways, of the U.S. itself toward the left. Interestingly enough, however, Matthew Desmond who so vehemently desires this outcome, explicitly distances himself from the left. For example, he recounts that once, after he presented a paper called “Exploiting the Inner City” at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, “a senior scholar looked rather alarmed. ‘You’re going down a Marxist path,’ she said. ‘You know that, right?’ Desmond’s response in his book to this question is, “I didn’t see it that way then and still don’t.” (43) Later in the book he writes, “These proposals are not anti-capitalist; they are anti-exploitation, anti-raw-deal, anti-purposeless-and-grotesque-inequality. . . . These are calls for a capitalism that serves the people, not the other way around.” (143)

I have two responses to these disavowals of anti-capitalism.

First, Desmond is quite a bit further to the left, more socialistic, in terms of my own conceptual framework than he is in terms of his own conceptual framework (which he does not spell out). After all, he advocates a great many strategies for doing what might be called “moving the needle to the left,” all to serve the eminently leftist goal of abolishing poverty.

Second, however, I want to say that Desmond’s failure to embrace socialism (even by a term less threatening to the general public) and his explicit endorsement of capitalism weaken his overall argument in two ways: first, by leading him into a certain amount of contradiction and confusion and second by limiting unnecessarily the scope of positive change he advocates. These problems manifest themselves strikingly in two key paragraphs, both of which I will quote before commenting on either, since I want to relate one to the other. First:

An America without poverty would be neither a utopia nor a land of gray uniformity. Look around: There are plenty of capitalist countries with far less poverty than us. Walt Disney World would still exist in a poverty-free America. There would still be markets and private property rights. Hermes handbags, Tesla cars, Levi’s jeans, and Nike shoes would still be allowed. You could still strike it rich. Ending poverty wouldn’t lead to social collapse, nor would it erase income inequality. There is so much of that in America today that we could make meaningful gains in equality, certainly enough to abolish poverty, and still have miles and miles of separation between the top and bottom. Conservatives like to say that they are not for equality of conditions (everyone gets the same thing) but equality of opportunity (everyone gets the same shot). Fine by me — but only if we actually work to make equality of opportunity a reality. (178–179)

And second:

Poverty abolition is a personal and political project. Those of us who embrace this project seek to divest from poverty in our consumer choices, investment decisions, and jobs. We support a government actively striving to end scarcity by rebalancing the nation’s safety net and expanding policies that empower the poor. We detest all forms of exploitation, whether it is carried out by corporations, property owners, or financial institutions, even if — especially if — it benefits us. We oppose racism, segregation, and opportunity hoarding in our communities, and stand for shared prosperity. Poverty abolitionists are solutionists, doers, prioritizing plan over critique, tangible wins over rhetorical ones, usefulness over purity — and we must organize.

In the first paragraph, Desmond seems to be trying to reassure his readers that a U.S. in which poverty has been eliminated would not have to be too different from the country we have now. To this end he explains that “[y]ou could still strike it rich” (178) and that there would still be “miles and miles of separation between top and bottom.” (178) In the second paragraph he describes the mindsets and value systems that are embraced by those who, like himself, identify as poverty abolitionists. Importantly, he declares that “[w]e detest all forms of exploitation, whether it is carried out by corporations, property owners, or financial institutions, even if — especially if — it benefits us. We oppose racism, segregation, and opportunity hoarding in our communities, and stand for shared prosperity.”

Now it seems to me that the assurances of the first paragraph fail to jibe in several important ways with the declarations of the second. First, poverty abolitionists detest all forms of exploitation. But a society with “miles and miles of separation between top and bottom” still has very wealthy people. How can they become extremely wealthy and stay that way without engaging in some form of exploitation? I do not believe that that is possible. The wealth must be generated in large part by workers who are getting less than their fair share in return for their labor. The wealthy, in turn, are getting more than their fair share. That’s exploitation. Again, poverty abolitionists oppose racism, but who can imagine in the foreseeable future a U.S. with a huge gap between economic top and economic bottom in which whites are not over-represented at the top and non-whites at the bottom? And how about segregation? Would there still not be considerable economic segregation, combined with racial segregation, in such a society? And would not opportunity hoarding still abound, with the wealthy buying for themselves and their families chances for all sorts of gratification and enrichment, including educational enrichment and all the life-chances that opens up, which those at the bottom could not afford?

I agree with Desmond that all of the injustices I have just discussed would be significantly diminished if poverty were abolished; my point is that they would not be eliminated without a great deal of additional pushing to the left. To be fair, Desmond does not say that we shouldn’t push further. But by not saying we should, he leaves the impression that it’s okay if we don’t. It’s almost as if he is equating the end of poverty with the end of history! If he identified as a socialist, or as a seeker of beloved community, he would be careful not to leave that impression.

It will be helpful at this point, I believe, to pause for a moment to examine the notion of “equality of opportunity.” I agree with Desmond’s criticism, in the first paragraph I have been analyzing, of conservatives who reject “equality of conditions” while championing “equality of opportunity.” It is non-sensical to champion the latter while rejecting the former. Equality of opportunity, as opposed to merely everyone’s having more than zero opportunity, must surely presuppose equal starting points in pursuing whatever kind of goals are at issue. But how can you have equal starting points without equality of conditions? For instance, how could a poor person have an opportunity to become rich that is equal to that of a person who is born rich in the first place? And the same rhetorical question applies to non-materialistic opportunities as well.

Desmond tries to set himself apart from such conservatives, but not altogether successfully. He concludes the first of his two dueling paragraphs by saying, “[E]quality of opportunity” is [f]ine by me, but only if we actually work to make equality of opportunity a reality.” But if what I am arguing is correct, the poverty-free but still very class-divided U.S. Desmond describes above would fall a very long way from affording equal opportunity. To bring about anything even remotely approaching equality of opportunity in that society would therefore take a great deal more work, a great deal more pushing in the direction of equality. And yet Desmond seems to suggest that once poverty is abolished, the work is over.

I do not mean to imply that absolute equality of condition should be the goal for socialists, even as a limit concept. Everyone should be equally valued and cared about, but caring about people means wanting them to flourish. And since different persons flourish in different ways, it would be very hard to tell whether one way of flourishing was or was not equally as satisfying as another. It might be suggested, then, that socialists should at least aim for strict equality of material prosperity, but this won’t quite do either. Suppose that the only means by which strict material equality could be enforced actually reduced everyone’s overall level of flourishing. Whether or not that would be the case is an empirical question that can’t be answered by philosophy. My point is that if it were the case, then surely the goal of strict material equality would have to be set aside for the benefit of all. And from this it follows that equality is not a supreme value that automatically trumps all other values. Here I agree with Desmond’s poverty abolitionists in espousing “usefulness over purity.” But I also agree with them in standing for “shared prosperity,” and I believe that this phrase implies much less inequality of wealth and power than is compatible with “miles and miles of separation between the top and bottom.” Progressives should have a powerful bias toward equality. The burden of proof should rest with inequality and should not too readily be considered met.

I am bothered, too, by the very beginning of the paragraph, where Desmond assures his readers that “An America without poverty would [not] be . . . a land of gray uniformity.” Why does he feel a need to say this? The answer, I think, lies in the way he seeks to do the reassuring: “Look around” he says: “There are plenty of capitalist countries with far less poverty than us.” He is saying that a capitalist country (I would say a predominantly capitalist country) can end poverty without ceasing to be capitalist (or predominantly capitalist). In other words, it can do so without becoming socialist (or predominantly so). And why is this important? The implication seems to be that socialism would bring “gray uniformity.” Which in turn implies that too much egalitarianism breeds “gray uniformity.” Even if Desmond does not identify as a socialist, it is irresponsible on his part simply to pass on this sort of anti-socialist, anti-egalitarian propaganda rather than subject it to critical examination. In socialism, or the beloved community, as I understand it, people care about each other and support each other a great deal more than they do in capitalism. For this reason individuals are encouraged to flourish in their own unique and creative ways and in a great variety of ways. This definitely does not sound like gray uniformity. This is not a state of affairs we need to avoid by placing between us and it miles and miles of inequality.

I do take Desmond’s point that poverty can be abolished within (predominantly) capitalist countries. This implies that here in the U.S. we don’t have to wait until the great shift from predominant capitalism to predominant socialism comes about, if and when it does, to rid ourselves of poverty. This, I think, is an extremely important point that helps dissuade us from biding our time when it comes to doing what it takes to abolish poverty.

One last thing that bothers me about the paragraph under discussion is Desmond’s assurance that in a poverty-free U.S. such consumer favorites as “Hermes handbags, Tesla cars, Levi’s jeans, and Nike shoes would still be allowed.” To me, such items are reminders of the way in which capitalist advertising turns certain products into fashionable status symbols and exploits consumers by conning them into buying these products at outrageous prices. We don’t need to be encouraged to value these sorts of products. We get enough of that encouragement already. And too, if the consumers of such products are exploited, can we be confident that the same is not true of the workers who produce them?

The paragraph in question encourages or at least condones classism and consumerism, and I don’t think Matthew Desmond really wants to encourage or condone those things. I think the paragraph contains evidence of certain inadequacies in Desmond’s political theorizing, which I have tried to point out. But I don’t think the paragraph is in keeping with the overall spirit of the book. I think the book would be a better one, both from my socialist standpoint, and in keeping with Desmond’s primary values, if the paragraph were simply omitted.

Desmond writes a number of paragraphs in which he eloquently and movingly shows us how much better it would be for all residents of the U.S. if none of us were poor. The following is a sample:

It is hard to put into words what the end of poverty would mean for millions of workers and parents and tenants and children below the line. It would mean a wholly different existence, a life marked by more safety and health, by more fairness and security. It would mean lives not directed by the scramble for survival but by passions and aspirations. It would mean finally being able to breathe. It would mean an opening up of the nation, the full embrace of the poor into the Union — to the benefit of the Union as a whole. Ending poverty would not solve all our problems. But since poverty is a catalyst and cause of an untold number of social ills, finally cutting the cancer out would lead to enormous improvements on many aspects of American life. (179)

Desmond goes on to argue that the elimination of poverty would usher in a new and richer kind of freedom for U.S. society as a whole:

Compared to a freedom that is contingent on our bank accounts — rich people’s freedom — a freedom that comes from shared responsibility, shared purpose and gain, and shared abundance and commitment strikes me as a different sort of human liberty altogether: deeper, warmer, more lush. This kind of freedom ‘makes you happy — and it makes you accountable,’as Robin Wall Kimmerer has put it. ‘All flourishing is mutual.’ (181)

Now these passages are in keeping with the overall spirit of Desmond’s book.

If I were looking for guidance about how progressive people should proceed after completion of the tremendous task of ending poverty in this country, I would not choose Poverty, by America as my guidebook. But the overwhelming majority of Matthew Desmond’s book concerns not the “after” but the “why” and the “how,” and to the answering of these vital questions, I feel that Poverty, by America makes an enormously valuable contribution.