It sure seems like all the rave these days is to talk about class. On one hand, there's the economic coverage and the struggles of millions of middle class families to pay their bills. On the other hand, there's Obama's "socialistic" plan to increase taxes on the upper class - with "class warfare!" as the battle cry to defend against the President's actions. Each of these notions have been getting considerable air time on the major media networks.
But pay attention long enough and you'll find that the term "lower class" is rarely ever mention in isolation. You may hear the phrase, "lower and middle class," as if both classes fit snuggly together like peanut butter and jelly. But it doesn't take much common sense to figure out that this shouldn't be and isn't true - after all, why bother having two separate names?
And, if you really pay attention, you'll hear virtually no discussion about the "lowest of the lower class," namely the homeless and those in poverty. So the question remains - "Where has the lower class gone?"
The answer, of course, is no where. In fact, with this economic crisis, it's more than likely that this class will continue to grow as unemployment continues to rise and the credit markets continue to sap. The real question, therefore, should be, "Where's the discussion of the lower class gone?" And the answer to that question, is unfortunate - it's been sucked out of political discourse on the back of John Edwards failed political career.
If you can remember, a mainstay of Edwards' 2008 presidential bid focused on the need to end poverty, a topic which many of the other candidates were silent about (in fact, he proposed a plan which projected to eliminate poverty by 2036). His campaign, although unsuccessful, pushed the issue of poverty into the forefront of the political debate and forced the other candidates to offer solutions and grapple with the epidemic. And then, just like that, the topic was gone, as Edwards was caught having an extra-marital affair.
One of the greatest moral dilemmas of our time was wiped off the political spectrum, untouched for much of the remainder of the campaign trail. But Obama can change all of that - he can pick up where Edwards left off. And he's already got a head start.
In his national speech before the members of Congress, Obama called for a new GI Bill, modeled on the post-WWII bill, which provided educational and vocational opportunities to millions of veterans returning from the war. But caring for the new veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan is just a start - albeit a very good start. Obama must extend this care to all veterans, especially those forgotten in the "lower class." According to a USAToday article, approximately one-fourth of all our nation's homeless have served in the Armed Forces. That doesn't include those who have served and are living just above poverty line, or the number living "better off" in the higher strata of the lower class.
Obama is correct for calling for more support to those who serve their country. But the discussion cannot end with a new GI Bill. The opportunity is now to push the conversation one step further and bring back the "lower class" into the political discussion. Like a newer version of the GI Bill, it is long overdue.
But pay attention long enough and you'll find that the term "lower class" is rarely ever mention in isolation. You may hear the phrase, "lower and middle class," as if both classes fit snuggly together like peanut butter and jelly. But it doesn't take much common sense to figure out that this shouldn't be and isn't true - after all, why bother having two separate names?And, if you really pay attention, you'll hear virtually no discussion about the "lowest of the lower class," namely the homeless and those in poverty. So the question remains - "Where has the lower class gone?"
The answer, of course, is no where. In fact, with this economic crisis, it's more than likely that this class will continue to grow as unemployment continues to rise and the credit markets continue to sap. The real question, therefore, should be, "Where's the discussion of the lower class gone?" And the answer to that question, is unfortunate - it's been sucked out of political discourse on the back of John Edwards failed political career.
If you can remember, a mainstay of Edwards' 2008 presidential bid focused on the need to end poverty, a topic which many of the other candidates were silent about (in fact, he proposed a plan which projected to eliminate poverty by 2036). His campaign, although unsuccessful, pushed the issue of poverty into the forefront of the political debate and forced the other candidates to offer solutions and grapple with the epidemic. And then, just like that, the topic was gone, as Edwards was caught having an extra-marital affair.
One of the greatest moral dilemmas of our time was wiped off the political spectrum, untouched for much of the remainder of the campaign trail. But Obama can change all of that - he can pick up where Edwards left off. And he's already got a head start.
In his national speech before the members of Congress, Obama called for a new GI Bill, modeled on the post-WWII bill, which provided educational and vocational opportunities to millions of veterans returning from the war. But caring for the new veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan is just a start - albeit a very good start. Obama must extend this care to all veterans, especially those forgotten in the "lower class." According to a USAToday article, approximately one-fourth of all our nation's homeless have served in the Armed Forces. That doesn't include those who have served and are living just above poverty line, or the number living "better off" in the higher strata of the lower class.
Obama is correct for calling for more support to those who serve their country. But the discussion cannot end with a new GI Bill. The opportunity is now to push the conversation one step further and bring back the "lower class" into the political discussion. Like a newer version of the GI Bill, it is long overdue.
