In 2004, some advocates highlighted a poll finding that nearly 80 percent of voters wanted presidential primary candidates to talk about their plans to address poverty. Only one candidate did this…. by talking about “two Americas”. And he lost the nomination. Even the Republican candidate, President George W. Bush, did little to reprise his faith-based initiative to address poverty, nor was his administration’s failure to successfully move the promised faith-based legislation since 2001 an issue in the election. Moreover, there’s been little federal attention to the issue since the 2004 election. And it would be fair to say that in it’s most significant action on a related matter – reauthorization of the 1996 welfare legislation last year – Congress did not pass a law considered favorable by these same advocates. This year, advocates will again announce that a new poll finds poverty is an issue of deep concern to primary voters – and they invited three of the major Democratic candidates for the 2008 Presidential race to respond to questions at a forum on poverty. Is there reason to think that the same kind of favorable polling data we’ve seen for years means something different this time? Not really. The problem is this: voters can hold all sorts of contradictory notions about priorities at the same time. That means we have to figure out the best way to talk about an issue to generate support that translates into action. And traditional polling data simply doesn’t give us the best information to develop that kind of communications strategy. For example, the poll finds that 8o percent of likely primary voters agree that, “Most people are poor because their jobs don’t pay enough, they lack good health care and education, and things cost too much for them to save and move ahead.” But, the poll also finds that nearly half of likely voters (44%) agree that, “Most people are poor because they make bad decisions in life.” So, I’m left wondering if that 44 percent actually thinks that people are poor because they made bad decisions that led to low-paying jobs without health care, which in turn means they cannot afford to save and move ahead. In other words, some voters may believe BOTH that people are poor because they are in bad jobs and that people are poor because bad personal decisions means they cannot get a better job! While I haven’t yet reviewed the whole survey instrument and cross-tabs (these are not available as far as I can tell), it’s hard to know from a survey like this what the voters will support if we talk about “poverty”. All the evidence that goes deeper finds that we shouldn’t put these policy solutions under the poverty umbrella – at least not if we want public support. It’s great to see all the recent energy and attention directed at issues of income poverty. Yet, if history is any guide, the strategy for directing that energy seems to be lacking thus far. And that’s potentially damaging if it ends up providing an opening for opponents to raise points that reinforce the near-majority public understanding of causation that gets in the way of public policy: “People are poor because they made bad decisions.” If the very people who already disagree that policy should address poverty harden their positions because the debate gets heated, then instead of taking advantage of an opening to find ways to promote more social inclusion, we’ll be even further behind. At the very least, we may find that some of our greatest supporters – the faith community in particular – is demoralized by the lack of results after an all out effort. And that would not just a bad use of resources and infrastructure, but potentially damaging to long-term efforts as well. P.S. Shawn’s post below is terrific – please read on!