In American Politics, Who Represents The Interests Of The Poor?

As President Obama delivered his State of the Union speech, he made a rather obvious omission: confronting the issue of poverty in America. This is, in fact, one of the great tragedies of the day. As Democrats and Republicans vie for control of Washington, their failure to address the plight of the poor has created a deafening silence.

More than 49 million Americans, 16 percent of the population, lived in poverty last year. Nearly the same number of Americans received SNAP benefits (food stamps). One in four mortgages are expected to be foreclosed by the end of the housing crisis. These numbers illustrate the obvious: poverty should be a top priority for our elected officials, and a defining issue for the coming election. So why won't either party use the p-word?

Given the sad state of our country's affairs, politicians are focused more on deflecting responsibility for the mess than providing solutions that reflect the reality of the situation. They've chosen to devote their energy to maintaining power, rather than assisting the most vulnerable members of our communities. This is an unforgivable dereliction, given that, at this exact moment, fighting poverty is one of the only acts that is truly in the public interest. 

The poor are pushed to the peripheries of society where they are left to be forgotten. They live in violent urban areas or neglected rural slums. Children attend schools segregated usually by race, but always by class. With their stories untold, the plight of the poor remains an abstraction to the vast majority of Americans. We take solace in our superficial participation in food and clothing drives, so long as we avoid actual contact with the recipients of our donations. Politicians offer the poverty class scraps. They virtually ensure the poor will remain dependent upon anemic social programs and socially immobile, while the underlying policies (or lack thereof) that created such extreme inequalities are left intact.

The presidential candidates from both major political parties, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, certainly hope to see benefits from their policies trickle down to the poor. Their platforms are, however, tailored for distinct classes, and essentially ignore the destitution that one in six Americans face. While President Obama alludes to the issue of poverty, he and his fellow Democrats devote their attention to the middle class. Both Obama and the Democratic Party's websites continually refer to "strengthening the middle class," and "middle-class security." The final paragraph on the Democrats' "Economy and Job Creation" page is especially telling: 

Democrats stand for the values of hard work and responsibility, and we know that as a country we are most successful when we invest in our people—middle-class families and small business owners—who can grow our economy from the bottom up (emphasis added).

Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, on the other hand. advocate on behalf of the wealthiest Americans. They are utterly indifferent to the poor, much less the middle class. Case in point: on his official website, Romney refers to workers as "human capital." 

Thus, we are left with a party that advocates for the rich and a party that advocates for the middle class, yet no party that represents the interests of the poor. Instead of acting on the moral imperative to eliminate poverty, our elected officials have turned a blind eye. After all, in a political system where donations determine representation, what do the poor have to offer?