This has become common in recent election cycles: candidates focus on the middle class and ignore the poor.
The United States, the wealthiest nation on Earth, also abides the deepest poverty of any developed nation, but you would not know it by listening to Hillary Clinton or Donald J. Trump, the major parties’ presidential nominees.
Mrs. Clinton, speaking about her economic plans on Thursday near Detroit, underscored her credentials as an advocate for middle-class families whose fortunes have flagged. She said much less about helping the 47 millions Americans who yearn to reach the middle class.
Her Republican rival, Mr. Trump, spoke in Detroit on his economic proposals four days ago, and while their platforms are markedly different in details and emphasis, the candidates have this in common: Both promise to help Americans find jobs; neither has said much about helping people while they are not working.
So why don’t they address lower-class Americans? A few tentative guesses:
- More undecided voters are in the middle class.
- Candidates want a singular message and so they go with the largest group of Americans – a vast majority of Americans, even ones who are legitimately rich or poor, consider themselves middle class – as to not have to complicate their rhetoric.
- The efforts in the 1990s to limit welfare – changes to programs and public housing – were very effective in halting conversation about poverty on a national level.
- Candidates want to be associated with people who think they have made it on their own.
- Lower-class Americans don’t have as much money to give to campaigns.
- Even with growing inequality, Americans have settled on the idea that we are a middle-class country. Candidates want to go with what the country thinks.
Regardless of the reason, it does say a lot about the ability of Americans to even converse about being poor.