Response to "Divided We Eat"

This post is a response to “Divided We Eat,” an article published in the November 29, 2010 edition of Newsweek

I applaud Lisa Miller's effort to address food-related socioeconomic issues. However, I disagree with many of the key points within the article. As a compassionate Progressive I believe that no one in America should go hungry, that all Americans should be assured access to quality health care and be assured access to a quality education.

There are many reasons for poverty and for food insecurity and I believe that we need to research causes with the goal that a better understanding of the causes will provide understanding for us to create solutions.

Many of the viewpoints outlined in “Divided We Eat” are exactly the kind of views that give liberals a bad name. Much of the article seems to suggest that low income people are victims of their circumstances, that people in bad circumstances are not in bad circumstances as a result of poor decision making and that if only the poor could afford to shop at Whole Foods all would be O.K.

Let’s walk through some of the issues. In more than one bullet point I think I am channeling my Depression-era maternal Grandmother.

1. “He (Adam Drewnowski, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington) argues that the most nutritious diet—lots of fruits and vegetables, lean meats, fish and grains—is beyond the reach of the poorest Americans, and it is economic elitism for nutritionists to uphold it as an ideal without broadly addressing issues of affordability.”

I do not agree with this. Yes, shopping at Whole Foods and probably even local farmers markets is going to be out of reach for those on food stamps and other assistance programs. Heck, I would love to buy all of my groceries at Whole Foods, but it is out of reach for me. However, I contend that there are several approaches to healthy eating that are far less expensive than junk food.

About two years ago my husband and I conducted an experiment. For six weeks we cooked most of our meals from a cookbook called Extending the Table. Extending the Table is a cookbook with recipes from around the world compiled by missionaries and aid workers who worked in very poor areas. What did we learn?

We learned to appreciate food a lot more. We learned that cooking like poor peoples in other parts of the world produces very tasty and nutritious foods for very little money. I learned that I can put a quick, tasty, nutritious, protein and vegetable rich meal on the table and serve four people for no more than $3.00 - $4.00. Tell me how you can fill a family on junk food for this amount of money.

Now, my $3.00 - $4.00 meal was not filet minion, lobster tail and high-end wine. Beans, rice and vegetables were much more common features on our dinner table.

2.Food deserts are very big problems in some areas and this area needs to be addressed.

3. The article tends to paint the poor as victims rather than adult (children cannot be held responsible for their position while they are children) people who are making chronically bad decisions. I am a compassionate person and know that people fall into poverty for all kinds of reasons—it is not a simple issue. And some food insecure people have circumstances that are out of their control. But at one time or another, we have all noticed a food stamp recipient ahead of us in the grocery line making very poor choices.

Pop Tarts is not a better choice than oatmeal and oatmeal is a lot less expensive. Doritos is not a better choice than homemade hummus (about $0.75 for 4-6 servings) and pita bread. Carryout pizza is not a better or more economical choice than vegetable soup made from heavily discounted ripe produce.

So when food stamp recipients chose high-sugar, high-fat, high-calorie foods rather than less expensive, healthy foods, the conclusion can only be made that some decision making skills may not be finely honed.


4. Obesity and tightening restrictions on what can be purchased with food stamps. I do not agree with the idea that imposing restrictions on what can and cannot be bought with food stamps is an undue intrusion into the lives of the recipients of benefits. Social safety net programs are necessary and I fully support the existence of safety net programs, but they cost a lot of money. Obesity resulting from poor decision-making while using these benefits will only cost American tax payers even more money. To put this issue very crassly….does a food stamps recipient have the right to consume huge amounts of Cheese Whiz and Fritos for years on end, then ring up an even bigger tab by becoming diabetic at the age of 40 or a heart attack at 48?

What do we do about this? I am not totally sure. I do not believe in a “Scarlet Letter” approach as no one should be embarrassed or made to feel lesser…but the way we are executing these programs today is not working.

5. Nutrition, cooking and life/household management courses must be made mandatory for as many people on assistance as possible. Basically, I believe that courses of this nature, including completed homework assignments, should be made mandatory for able bodied people with appropriate levels of ability (courses may or may not be appropriate for developmentally disabled, or other mentally/physically handicapped people).

What are the answers? Tough love coupled with education and improvement of the factors that are truly problematic (like food deserts) have to be key components within a solution. Also, perhaps a realization that people on benefit programs many not have exactly the same freedoms as those not receiving benefits. This is also a bit crass, but Doritos are a privilege, not a right.

As a Progressive I believe that we need to start from scratch and think creatively. The beginning two-part premise needs to be “No One In America Goes Hungry. Our National Debt Cannot Keep Rising.” Solely adding funding to our existing programs will not accomplish either aspect of the premise. I have some crazy ideas, but I would love to hear your thoughts.

The "Free Market" - Successful Environmental Self-Regulators. Or Not.

"We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior." (Libertarian Party Platform 2.2 Environment)

Essentially the only thing I agree with from the above statement is that social pressure can be a very effective change element. As for the rest of the sentiments included in this portion of the Libertarian Party platform, all I can ask is....seriously? Pictures tell the tale better than I ever could. The following are all man-made disasters which entirely or largely resulted from carelessness and the "free market" working to squeeze a few percentage points of additional profit. These, of course, are just a small sampling of careless incidents and in some cases criminal incidents of the private sector.

The private sector has done things to advance environmental causes and those efforts should be wildly applauded. However, our track record certainly does not indicate that the private sector can operate without regulation. Likewise, the government cannot or should not operate without supervision. The private and public sectors should serve as counter weights keeping each other in check. Sometimes, unfortunately things fall out of balance.

Love Canal is a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, NY which became the subject of national and international attention, controversy, and eventual environmental notoriety following the discovery of 21,000 tons of toxic waste that had been buried beneath the neighborhood by Hooker Chemical.

Summitville mine was a gold mining site in Rio Grande County, Colorado 25 miles (40 km) south of Del Norte. It is remembered for the environmental damage caused in the 1980s by the accidental leakage of mining by-products into local waterways and then the Alamosa River.


Upper Big Branch mine, West Virginia - 29 dead

Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil "Spill" - 11 dead, thousands of lives in shambles

Dead whale--20 years later Alaskan beaches remain polluted by oil from the Exxon Valdez spill.


Enbridge Energy Partners spill, Kalamazoo River--2010

"We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior." (Libertarian Party Platform 2.2 Environment)

Right to Keep and Bear Arms--Libertarian Party Platform

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. (Section 1.6 Libertarian Party platform)

One of the complex things about philosophical movements is that camps of thought often become entwined. My understanding of Libertarian philosophy does not conclude that Libertarians are necessarily Conservative Constitutionalists. However, I think that it is fair to say that Libertarians and Conservative Constitutionalists share a number of common beliefs. One of those commonalities is their shared position of the right to keep and to bear arms. On this point, I have never heard Libertarians or Conservative Constitutionalists concede that there ever should ever be any compromise on this issue whatsoever. This is a black and white issue. We all have the right to keep and bear arms and neither person nor government can interfere with this right. No gun control law is Constitutional, ever.

But, let’s back up for a moment. If reasonable and rational thought is applied, this issue has decided shades of gray.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There were certainly factors, namely the recent victory in the Revolutionary War that would have given the Founding Fathers pause relating to the security of the infant United States of America. England was a powerful nation and the military of the United States was far from a finely tuned organization. The British could have very feasibly attacked in attempt to reclaim its territory.

But, what did our Founding Fathers have in mind when they included “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” within the Bill of Rights? 1791, the year the Bill of Rights was adopted, firearms in common use included musket rifles, single-shot muzzleloader handguns and cannons.

Today, we obviously have a much wider variety of “arms” available to us. Perhaps the “arm” I need to protect myself and my family is a nuclear warhead, or a vial of anthrax or maybe just a few 155 mm artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

These powerful elements of modern warfare were not even elements of our Founding Fathers imagination. Who could have imagined the horror of a nuclear bomb prior to “Little Boy” being dropped August 6, 1945? Clearly, the realization of this nightmare was not a part of our Founding Fathers’ decision making process.

Of course, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and the wide range of modern weapons are “arms.” Would any reasonable person believe that an individual has the right to “bear” a nuclear “arm?” Translation - are you OK with your neighbor storing a nuclear warhead in his garage? He might need this “arm” to defend himself against the Taliban, the North Koreans or his own government after all.

This is, of course, an insane line of reasoning. I merely present the argument to make the point that the Second Amendment is not an open and shut case. We then have to conclude that citizens and the government have at least partially restricted rights to keep and bear arms, hence the debate.

It is not an unconstitutional debate; it is a very real debate that should not be cut off.

I believe we can agree that to store a nuclear warhead in your garage is extremely dangerous. Are we OK with citizens of densely populated cities packing automatic weapons in the subway? As a former resident of the great city of Chicago I can emphatically say that I would be very uneasy in a city that condoned guns being commonplace. There are simply too many people in a very small space.

Most reasonable people, I think, see a big difference between owning guns for sporting use (hunting, target shooting, etc), keeping a gun in your dresser drawer for personal protection, carrying a firearm on your person while running errands on a Saturday afternoon, and owning/trafficking guns that facilitate further violence in the streets.

This is not a black and white issue as Libertarians and Conservative Constitutionalists like to preach. I ask these Americans to honor others’ rights to be and feel safe and to engage in reasonable discussion and compromise, not continue to proselytize an evangelical-style faith that this is a clear cut issue.

Libertarian Party Platform—Personal Liberty

“Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.” (Libertarian 2010 Party Platform—Section 1.0 Personal Liberty)

I fully agree that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and that they should take responsibility for those choices. In my view, a solid portion of the problems with American society reside in a failure of personal responsibility— largely an unfortunate by-product of the wealth and affluence Americans enjoy. Too many of us have a sense of entitlement that at times does not serve us well.

However, it is all well and good to say that people need to make their own choices and to live with the consequences. But, what do we do when personal choices affect innocent people—particularly children? Do we have the stomach to see large numbers of men, women and children starving and destitute? Maybe we could get used to it. Solid portions of the wealthy in the world are very good at dining in fine restaurants just blocks away from inner-city slums teaming with starving and disease-ridden children, not to mention their parents.

If you have not traveled and looked in the eyes of a dirty, sick and hungry child, I contend that you do not know if you can stomach it or not. Latin America is close—just a plane ride away. I have seen these children with my own eyes in Mexico, Columbia, Brazil and Argentina and I can say without a doubt that I do not want to live in a country in which wholesale poverty of this magnitude is accepted and is just part of daily life. Already, a shocking number of children go to bed hungry in the United States. Maybe you can save the plane fare and explore communities in crisis in the U.S….dire need may be closer than you think.

So, how do we deal with disastrously poor choices, particularly when those choices directly affect the innocent? Many Libertarians say that people would donate money of their own free will to non-profit organizations that would in turn provide the needed care. Maybe these non-profits would take the place of government programs if “Big Brother” would just get out of the way.

This is fantasy based on the under-funding of many critical aid organizations around the world, including those who operate in our own country. Americans are generous people, but not generous enough on a regular enough basis to allow me to reasonably conclude that if our taxes were severely cut due to elimination of government programs that we would all happily begin cutting checks large enough and often enough to fill the need. I suspect that too many of us would take an extra vacation, or maybe upgrade our cars.

There is also the issue of generational poverty. Poverty is not merely an absence of money; it is a state of mind. In my own life I have been broke on more than one occasion, but I have never been poor. Poverty is most often coupled with a lack of hope, a tremendous reduction in self-esteem and the lack of experience, education or vision to improve one’s life and the life of their families. Do we just kick to the curb those who were not raised in a fashion that taught them tools for successful living?

Yes, there are rags to riches stories. As Americans we love these stories. You know how the story goes. Young black man from the inner city slums of D.C. is inspired by one of his teachers, sleeps in the basement of the school for 18 months to keep himself off of the streets, is accepted first to the University of Maryland, then to Yale Law….now is wearing a $5,000 suit making $175,000 per year. A mere decade ago he was struggling in the slums, but through focus and hard work he made something of himself.

These scenarios happen and it is wonderful when they do. But, for every “success story” there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of cases of generational poverty and grave generational mistakes. Middle class and upper class kids are statistically much, much more successful in their own lives not because they are smarter, but because they are taught the tools for success from the start.


I do not advocate constant handouts as self-esteem and pride are best achieved when one is standing on their own two feet. But, as a compassionate and civil society, how to we help people to improve their position in life, acquire the skills needed, and effectively raise their children? Handing out money on a long-term basis will not work. Turning our backs and demanding “people to take responsibility for their choices,” especially when those choices are going to continue the cycle is short-sided from a social and economic perspective and barbaric from a humanitarian perspective.

I do not advocate redistribution of wealth to “punish” the rich. But, we cannot turn our backs on those in need particularly when helping to position people to advance and support themselves makes far more sense than straining our penal and emergency systems.

So, what do we do? Education and exposure is a huge part of the answer to this and so many things in life. I will pay whatever taxes need to be paid to assure that we have outstanding education systems including our K-12, university and adult continuing education.

The manner in which our education systems are funded today is insane. The vast majority of states funding K-12 education with property taxes only 110% guarantees very unequal opportunity for the start. We cannot demand that American citizens take responsibility for themselves and make use of their education if they never had access to quality education to begin with.

Still have doubt that our educational system does not provide opportunity that is anywhere near equal? I invite you to take a stroll through a few Chicago Public schools. Yes, there are some select good schools and some very select excellent schools within the Chicago Public school system. BUT, there are many…way too many schools in the system that range from inadequate to down right deadly.

We need to:

#1 Truly revamp our education system to assure quality educational opportunities for the affluent as well as the poor

#2 Make sure disadvantaged students have core needs met—kids cannot learn if they are hungry or are scared for their safety.

#3 Create a system in which a college education is attainable and affordable. A university degree is increasingly becoming a fantasy for many.

#4 Create a system of adult continuing education and career training. In fact, I don’t think able-bodied people should be entitled to a welfare or unemployment check without being enrolled in, attending and actively participating in programs of this nature (of course child care would be provided to those who need it). I will happily support paying taxes for giving people a hand up, rather than a hand out. Both the education system and a system of evaluation and monitoring would need to be created. But, I don’t think we need more bureaucrats, just repurposing some of the ones we have.

Adults who are truly abusing the system (able-bodied people who chose to watch Oprah rather than attend class) will find themselves in dire need and will need to reform their behavior. Good intentioned people looking for “a chance” will get their chance and children will receive benefits distributed in a manner in which their benefits cannot be stolen by dead-beat parents. Finally, ample substance abuse/addiction resources will be needed.

The Libertarian commandment, “Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make” is all well and good. But, the Libertarian demand that Federal, state and local governments step aside and stop making them pay taxes that will benefit others is absurd. Who is going to pay for the education systems we need to give people a fighting chance? Those of us who are blessed enough to pay taxes must be willing to fund opportunities for those less fortunate…not fund chronic handouts, but fund helping hands up.

This issue is not whether we should pay taxes or really even how much we should pay as individuals. The question is…what are we and what is society getting for our money.

Libertarianism: Are We Enlightened Enough for It to Work?

“Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.” (excerpt from the Libertarian Party platform preamble)

I do believe in the general goodness of mankind and I believe that there is much more beauty in the world than evil (evil is often times just a bit “louder”). However, as members of the human race, I think that we need to be honest with ourselves.

Throughout the history of the Western world* we have provided little indication that on a grand scale and for long periods of time we are capable of pursuing our own dreams and liberty without infringing on the rights and liberties of others. (*certainly grave challenges have existed outside of the Western world, I am simply much more familiar with the history of the West)

Feudalism, exploration of new lands and conquering of indigenous peoples, the Crusades, slavery, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, withholding of basic rights based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnic background, abuse of labor including men, women and children, sale of unsafe goods (including food and medicines) for economic gain, creation of vast corporate monopolies, destruction of our environment, institution-wide gambles that benefit a very few while putting the lives of billions around the globe in peril, wars to secure access to/expand resources and territory………

The list goes on and on. Despite the tremendous generosity of mankind, we also do terrible, terrible things to one another. Given the collective histories of Western societies, what makes us think that we can or will now, “defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings?” Have we not squandered so many opportunities to live this ideal?

I believe that individuals truly committed to the implementation of a Libertarianism directly from philosophy to agenda are misguided at best and often times are largely interested is furthering their own liberty and paying fewer taxes while conveniently failing to think about how to fulfill the “each other’s liberty” portion of the Libertarian platform. I am sure that many Libertarians would agree that vague philosophy needs to be boiled down to actionable plans, I have just yet to hear or read anything that I would consider realistically implementable.

Although certainly some government interference was/is overreaction to relatively small events, many of the institutions Libertarians hate so much—FDA, SEC, EPA for instance— were created after the wholesale and terrible infringement on the rights others. So what makes us think that we are so different now? Although the human race has advanced in some ways, in many ways we have not. In fact, in many ways we have simply become much for efficient and effective in our ability to create havoc.

I simply cannot advocate an approach in which communities, states and nations trust each other to be "our best selves." Based on our past and current behaviors, it is a fool’s errand as we have all been given ample opportunity to behave well--as societies and as individuals. Therefore, as we move through the Libertarian Party platform, I will outline the weaknesses of the Libertarian platform, reasons for my opinions and ultimately thoughts for alternative, implementable approaches.

Libertarianism: Is It Implementable?

Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action and the minimization or even abolition of the state. Libertarians embrace viewpoints ranging from a minimal state (or minarchist) to anarchist.

Sounds nice doesn’t it? Maximum individual liberty, minimization or elimination of the government? If we are honest with ourselves, who amongst us does not at some level revel in this idea?

The first sentence of the Libertarian Party platform states, “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.”

I content that these sentiments and the full Libertarian philosophy is an interesting one and is in many ways beautiful. In fact, even though Marxism and Libertarianism are generally thought to be at dead opposite ends of the political spectrum, I find beauty in both.

In order or avoid servitude of the proletariat, Marxist theory asks that each member of society contribute only the amount of labor needed to support goods and services each individual needs and the communal needs of society. Because there are no classes and no state in an ideal Marxist society, each of our needs would be roughly the same. There is not a class of haves and a class of have nots. Given the absence of government, there is not opportunity for corruption. We all would exist peacefully and happily in an ideal communal state.

While Marxism asks us to live in harmony in a balanced communal existence, Libertarianism asks for the essentially the same result, coming from another direction. Libertarian philosophy also seeks elimination of the organized state, also seeks freedom, but rather that achieving this freedom via communal cooperation, freedom is achieved by each member of society enjoying maximum liberty while not violating the liberty of others.

Marxism and Libertarianism are both lovely ideas that do have great merit when exploring political philosophy and some of the more esoteric conversations that exist within the halls of academia.

However, as we will explore via a series of posts looking at the Libertarian Party platform, philosophy must be converted to pragmatic approaches. Moving directly from philosophy to application (without clearly defining the structure and the application approach) is asking for trouble. Soviet-style communism, for instance, was a disastrous mutilation of Marxist theory.

Even though most Libertarians would shutter at the comparison, I believe that they have a lot in common with Marxists--belief in a poetic philosophy without tactical strategy for implementation. Sort of like trying to build a skyscraper from a beautiful painting. At some point architectural drawings created by highly skilled architects and engineers are going to be needed.