--- On Tue, 8/11/09, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
> Case closed really. And obviously public opinion does
> matter, though perhaps we disagree slightly on why it
> matters. You seem to be saying that public opinion initiates
> the anti-poor public policy we are talking about. Generally
> speaking, I prefer to think that public opinion is decisive
> only to the extent that the public has to consent to public
> policy to a certain degree. The public can't initiate public
> policy, but the public can certainly frustrate official
> public policy if public opinion is hostile enough to
> government policy.
[WS:] Please see my response to Dennis Claxton. I do not think there is much disagreement between what we both arguing here. My main point is that the "criminalization of poverty" is a much more complex issue than simplistic blaming the ruling class. The ruling class certainly is not without blame, but it is ruling by consent from the middle class. Therefore, policies toward the poor should be viewed in bro9ader context of class and power relations in the US, with the particular focus on the consent of the middle and working class to the legitimacy of US institutions and class stratification.
Contrary to what some may believe, the US is a democracy ruled by consensus rather than coercion and force or even deception. Although the latter are definitely present, they are not the key element that maintains the status quo in this country. To believe otherwise is really misguided. A far more useful approach is to analyze how that consensus is actually developed and maintained.
I do not think that Ehrenreich's piece in question was very informative in that area.
Wojtek