As the first presidential debate ended, I found myself asking, “how did everyone lose that debate?” While Republican Party nominee Mitt Romney may have done slightly better than President Barack Obama, nobody, including the American people, truly triumphed.
This debate presented both candidates an opportunity to offer a vision for addressing two of our nation’s greatest challenges — widening income inequality and falling social mobility — that trap low-income Americans in poverty and prevents thousands of underserved students from reaching their dreams. Yet, neither candidate mentioned terms like: equality of opportunity, American Dream or socio-economic mobility. Obama, for example, explained the nuances of specific policy proposals including his proposed Medicare savings, Dodd-Frank legislation and an Independent Payment Advisory Board that would offer recommendations as to which medical procedures actually work. Romney, on the other hand, was rather vague about his tax reform proposal, health care plan and financial reform initiative. Perhaps the only matter on which Romney was specific was his desire to cut the federal subsidy to PBS, despite his professed love for Big Bird. These issues are all crucially important; however, neither candidate discussed the real suffering that many Americans are feeling.
Although statistics never truly capture people’s pain, the magnitude of our challenges can be seen through three numbers. Firstly, the top 1 percent of Americans currently hold nearly 18 percent of the nation’s income and the top 20 percent control 50 percent of the country’s income. Secondly, 42 percent of American children born in the lowest income quintile will remain in that quintile when they become adults. Thirdly, 15 percent of Americans live below the poverty line. These numbers together paint a dismal reality, wherein many Americans are mired in a cycle of poverty, making social mobility a fantasy.
These statistics may seem abstract, but they represent real people who cannot determine their own futures. These are kids who live in a low-income zip code, attend a subpar school, and are therefore unable to attend college. These are parents who work multiple jobs but because of inadequate government support cannot provide for their families. These are youth who face neighborhood violence that stifle their academic potential. Most importantly, these are our fellow Americans, with values, dreams and aspirations similar to our own, who cannot achieve a middle-class life.
Although both candidates claim to care about these folks, neither presented a plan to fix their situation. While neither candidate, nor much of the American populace, supports “redistributive solutions” that equalize outcomes, Americans do fundamentally believe in equality of opportunity and that everyone should have an equal chance at success. But neither candidate articulated a vision that would strengthen our education system to ensure underserved students can reach their dreams. Neither candidate outlined a plan to expand programs like earned income tax credit so that low-income Americans have a shot at providing their children opportunities they never had. And perhaps most sadly, neither candidate explained their aspiration of ensuring that every American, regardless of the community in which they live, can achieve the American Dream. These failures left the American people losers of this debate and, if both candidates do not develop plans to expand equality of opportunity, perhaps even the next four years.
Neeraj Salhotra, a Rice University senior majoring in classical studies, policy studies and economics, is interested in public policy and global affairs in general, and energy policy and economic policy in particular.