_And who would think otherwise?  Well, recently in a comment on another post, I was asked for the liberal viewpoint on this question: "When it comes to poverty, is all suffering bad? Why or why not?"

I don't know that there's a liberal viewpoint on this, but it's an easy question to answer. 
Yes.  When it comes to poverty, all suffering is bad.

_Legions of people throughout time hold their humble beginnings as one of the best things that could have happened to them.  Many have found poverty be a circumstance that forced them to fight for survival and success, to appreciate what they have now, and to be able to see others with more compassion.  One of the most adaptive character traits a person can have is the ability to grow stronger from suffering.

But while overcoming the barriers set up by living in poverty can be empowering if certain variables are present, such as a strong family system, a helpful mentor, success in school, or an exceptional individual vision; it must be remembered that it's the act of overcoming hardship that promotes confidence and further success, not the hardship itself.  When the means aren't there to convert hardship into fuel, overcoming it is not always a realistic expectation.  The hardship itself, and the suffering it causes, cannot be viewed as a good thing.

_ One of the most important concepts explored in religion, philosophy, and psychology is the value of transcending suffering.  This is a process supported by society when people face any kind of suffering, whether it be from dealing with cancer or grief, from violence or sexual abuse, from the loss of a job or a divorce.  But is the same process possible for the suffering that comes from watching your kids go hungry?  What if a violent event is not an extraordinary but a daily occurrence?  What if the loss of a job leads very swiftly to the loss of a home?  Being laid off may challenge a middle-class person to reevaluate their career or go back to school.  For a low-income person, it could mean moving into a shelter.

People in poverty suffer from everything everyone else does, but with fewer resources.  It is much harder to take a hit when you are already down.  Lower-income people are more severely impacted by things that can strike anyone, like a natural disaster or the loss of a loved one, because there is often more financial devastation that occurs in the wake of these events.  For example, a middle-class person who is in a terrible car accident is more likely to have auto insurance, medical insurance, paid sick time, a comfortable environment to recuperate in after leaving the hospital, and adults with flexible schedules and transportation who can help out.  If you've gone through something like this yourself or with someone close to you, you know what enormous obstacles are faced at such times for people in any economic circumstance.  Insurance doesn't come close to covering all the costs.  There are things like physical therapy, co-pays and deductibles, lost work time not covered by benefits, and the many incidental expenses that rear their heads in a crisis.  People without insurance, without a strong family structure, without any paid sick time, living in a small or ill-equipped home, may not ever fully recover.  Injuries can become permanent disabilities.

There is always the potential for someone who has experienced any type of suffering to eventually learn to use it as fodder for growth.  But I see absolutely, positively, no value whatsoever in allowing poverty to exist anymore than we can help it.  It is simply much less possible to find meaning in being hungry or cold, especially over many years, without hope, than it is to find meaning in suffering on an existential level.

Moments of grace can take place when light is seen at the end of a tunnel.  If one keeps trudging, it is possible to one day feel oneself to be the better for having walked through it.  But if the tunnel only stretches further at each turn, or grows darker from additional burdens, how often can that transcendence occur?

So, when it comes to poverty, is all suffering bad?  For me, the most fundamental answer lies in the philosophy that inspired the framework for this website, Abraham Maslow's theory of the Hierarchy of Needs. 

Only when people have food to nourish their bodies should they be expected to turn their suffering into food for the soul.

The Plan B issue is a hot topic, and a tough call.  I'm going out on a limb with my view.  Let me have it, but I ask only one thing.  Note that I'm not saying I'm sure this was the right decision, just that I think I know what might have been behind it. 

The glaring mistake on the part of the administration is one of not owning the decision and clearly communicating a rationale.  I remember this problem so well from the early part of their term, about everything from not closing Gitmo to not putting the birther thing to rest by producing a birth certificate.  I think there are equal parts arrogance and good faith there, as in "look, we shouldn't have to walk everyone through this - they elected me to do the right thing, and I'm doing my best, based on deeply help principles, and it's hard enough dealing with the onslaught of decisions, let alone having to go out there and explain every move I make."  Really bad approach, and they have obviously absorbed some feedback about it, and they have done better.  But they aren't doing better on this one, so everyone is left once again with a big wtf. 

After a good 24 hours of struggling to understand what the heck is up with this action, this what I think is going on. 

The science is in, the risks are low.  I have no doubt that Sebelius and Obama understand that - they aren't ignoring it, they are putting it into a bigger context.  (The wailing that this decision is some kind of indictment of Obama's commitment to science is dogmatic overreaction.  This administration is in no danger of disregarding evidenced-based research, and since there are several vying for the White House who are very happy to do that, which is a critical concern, we need to save our energy to direct it there.)

Rather, I think the administration is thinking that it's not as simple a question of whether Plan B is as safe as Tylenol.  Tylenol is used for headaches, Plan B is used for pregnancy prevention.  Pregnancy risks only exist for people who are sexually active.  Girls 16 and under who are sexually active need support, information, counseling - at the very least, they need attention.  If the crisis of a birth control lapse facilitates the girl reaching out to an adult in some way, that's an opportunity.

Is this good thinking, practical, best practice, a well-conceived approach?  I don't know.  I'd have to think about it more, and talk to several people I know who have done a lot of work/thinking about teen pregnancy.  (Carol, Angie, I want to know your take!). 

I'm just saying that how Plan B is labeled re: the age of girls purchasing it was an issue for this administration, and they had misgivings about lowering the age to the extent they stepped in in a very assertive way. 

And yes Obama, this is one you need to walk us through your thinking on.

I predict he will eventually do that, and agree or not, it will be easier to acknowledge this move was based on values principles rather than politics.

Writer Tim Wise is a long-time soldier in the fight against racism in the US.  He is a lecturer and author who writes powerful, rigorously-researched and well-developed essays and articles, which you can find on his website.  Wise is a white Southerner who forcefully articulates the need for active involvement of white people in the fight against racism.  As a white Southerner myself, committed to same battle, he is one of my heroes.

From the website FAQ's page:
"White privilege refers to any advantage, opportunity, benefit, head start, or general protection from negative societal mistreatment, which persons deemed white will typically enjoy, but which others will generally not enjoy. These benefits can be material (such as greater opportunity in the labor market, or greater net worth, due to a history in which whites had the ability to accumulate wealth to a greater extent than persons of color), social (such as presumptions of competence, creditworthiness, law-abidingness, intelligence, etc.) or psychological (such as not having to worry about triggering negative stereotypes, rarely having to feel out of place, not having to worry about racial profiling..."

Let's get in campaign mode - maybe it will even be fun!  Obama added a little enticement in his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas yesterday.  Newsflash: he's not planning to try to do this without the base.

A great thing about the left is the diversity of our viewpoints.  The forceful voices of the most radical are indispensable in keeping our leaders honest and pulling them from the natural centrism of most successful politicians.  But the reality is that first term Presidents in America have to fit governing in with politicking, instead of the other way around.  So when we get someone who will substantively - if not perfectly - promote liberal values, we need to facilitate a second term.  There we can expect to see bolder action on progressive initiatives.  The good news with Obama is, I don't think that's going to be such a bitter pill to swallow.
 

Yesterday he made a speech in Kansas that sounded like a bellwether.  I was impressed with the clarity of the liberal vision he espoused.  For all the hand-wringing about his socialistic tendencies for the right, we on this side know Obama is no revolutionary. 

My friends and readers know that's fine with me - I want an arbitrator and diplomat in the White House.  Partly because I know we are unlikely to ever see a radical leftist there.  But partly because I'm not sure that "US Commander in Chief" is the most appropriate office for a radical of any brand to hold. 

But even my compatriots who are purer in philosophy than I am should be able to get excited about reelecting Obama if he keeps talking like he did yesterday.

It was a long speech.  I have provided copious quotes here; passages that illustrate philosophy and policy positions.  For the examples, details, supporting information, and statistics Obama used, read the whole speech here, or watch it here.

• "...this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what's at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement. Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules."
• "...this isn't the first time America has faced this choice. At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world's industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress."
• "(Theodore) Roosevelt disagreed.  He knew that the free market has never been a free licence to take whatever you can from whomever you can. He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn't profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn't safe. And today, they still can't.And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. 'Our country,' he said, 'means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy … of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.'  Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist – even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women, insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.
• "...there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. "The market will take care of everything," they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty.
  Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory."
• "We simply cannot return to this brand of "you're on your own" economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. We know that it doesn't result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn't result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that's enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens."
• "...gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that's at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people – we tell our kids – that in this country, even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That's why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40%. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it's estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class – 33%."
• "(This is) not a future that we have to accept, because there's another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country – a view that's truer to our history, a vision that's been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years. It's not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America. It's not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all of society's problems. It is a view that says in America we are greater together – when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share."
• "The truth is we'll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who's best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who's best at busting unions, who's best at letting companies pollute as much as they want. That's a race to the bottom that we can't win, and we shouldn't want to win that race. Those countries don't have a strong middle class. They don't have our standard of living.The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top – the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology."
• "...we need to meet the moment. We've got to up our game. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission – a national mission. Government and businesses, parents and citizens. In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class. The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. And their incomes are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma. Which means we shouldn't be laying off good teachers right now – we should be hiring them. We shouldn't be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more. We shouldn't be making it harder to afford college – we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn't rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went. In today's innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. Our factories and our workers shouldn't be idle. We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries. And by the way, if we don't have an economy that's built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won't all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance. Because if we want an economy that's built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering. This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America."
• "...we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing – all those things that helped make us an economic superpower? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country? Because we can't afford to do both. That is not politics. That's just math...so far, most of my Republican friends in Washington have refused under any circumstance to ask the wealthiest Americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying when Bill Clinton was president."
• "This isn't about class warfare. This is about the nation's welfare. It's about making choices that benefit not just the people who've done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.
  Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street. As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.  But part of the deal was that we wouldn't go back to business as usual. And that's why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on what should be their core purpose: getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing millions of families who want to buy a home or send their kids to college.  Now, we're not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way. But already, some of these reforms are being implemented... (T)he vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals, they want to do right by their customers. They want to have rules in place that don't put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing. And yet, Republicans in Congress are fighting as hard as they can to make sure that these rules aren't enforced."
• "We still have a stake in each other's success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, 'The fundamental rule of our national life,' (T. Roosevelt) said, 'the rule which underlies all others – is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.'  And I believe America is on the way up."