Poor America, Rich Potential

At the beginning of the 2014 election year, the parties in Washington are looking for new issues with populist potential, and these days, they are both hitting on the same one: growing economic inequality in America.

Both camps complain that more and more people in the U.S. are having to live on less. The purely date-based motivation for this is that 50 years ago, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson declared “war on poverty.” From a political viewpoint, however, the parties’ main concern is positioning themselves in time for the congressional elections and mobilizing supporters emotionally.

The past week has shown how the debate could go: Despite being united on the diagnostic front, Democrats and Republicans suggest very different solutions, which stay true to their convictions regarding the role of the state. Instead of looking for recipes to fight poverty and inequality together, they may be making their mark in the period up to the November elections with strikes against the other side.

Obama Wants To Support the Disadvantaged More

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama stated that since the lowest point of the economic crisis, 8 million new jobs have been created, but added, “We’ve got to do more to make sure that all Americans share in that growth … there are still a lot of people who are struggling.”

Inequality will be a core topic in Obama’s State of the Union address on Jan. 28. This has several advantages for the president. In the short-term, he can help his Democratic Party with their election campaign by promising more help for the weakest members of society. He can also distract from the mishaps of his health reform. Finally, he can present the Republicans as cold helpers of the rich.

In the long term, the struggle against social inequality could also define Obama’s political legacy. In recent years, Obama often picked up on the question: How much state intervention does the country need; how much government is necessary to make America fair? This was a leitmotif during his election campaign against Mitt Romney, which 47 percent of voters dismissed as social rhetoric. It ruled the dispute about tax increases a year ago, when Obama demanded that the rich had to contribute more to public welfare.

In December, the president took up this theme in a keynote speech: “The government cannot stand on the sidelines,” he stated, “we need to set aside the belief that government cannot do anything about reducing inequality.” The Republicans have been inspired by these beliefs for decades. They see redistribution of wealth, as demanded by Obama, as socialism.

Republicans Recognize Voter Potential

Right-wing politicians certainly recognize, however, that America suffers from inequality and that it would be politically foolish to leave all voters on a low income to the Democrats. For example, lawyer, finance expert of the Republicans in Congress and 2012 vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan is making his mark as a new lawyer to the poor. Ryan visited poor areas in the country and stated that social safety nets have “failed miserably.”

From the Republican point of view, poverty and low incomes have not spread because the state hasn’t poured in enough money, but because it set enormously false incentives. Right-wing politicians are therefore suggesting reforms, which should wrest America’s poor from their misery: That anybody who receives money from the state should have to work in some form, low-income earners are able to receive tax-relief, the state should offer more training and continued education opportunities, and, above all, that Washington should take a step back and hand over social security to the individual states.

In Republican opinion, the Democrats’ plans — for example, more unemployment benefit or a higher minimum wage — simply serve to immortalize society’s problems. This week, conservative Senator Marco Rubio stated, alluding to the minimum wage, “a job that pays $10 an hour is not the American dream.”

Struggle for a Majority in the Senate

The Republicans would like to defend their majority in the House in the fall and reconquer the majority in the Senate. They are aware that they shouldn’t repeat the mistakes made by their previous candidate Romney — coming across as cold and arrogant. With a new concept in favor of the weakest in society, they could avoid their reputation for being destructive and ungenerous and just wanting to talk down Obama’s health reform.

The Democrats must not fear this debate in principal, as they fared slightly better in Obama’s debate with Romney back in 2012. However, Obama is not as popular as back then and the Democrats must take care not to be discouraged by moderate swing voters by simply calling for more wealthy victims.