Via (who else but) Inclusionist, I checked out Chapter 6 of Prof. George Lakoff's new book on progressive strategy. Take a look at this paragraph on economic equality: For progressives, deservedness is understood through the lens of nurturance, which says that someone in need deserves assistance. This satisfies the "human dignity principle," making sure no one falls too far behind. It also fulfills the "common good principle," since the needs of the commons are counted as valid needs that merit attention, besides just the needs of an individual.

An provocative article in this Sunday's post about food banking, a subject I got to be familiar with while doing a fellowship on hunger issues. The author's main point is that food banking is a distraction from the real problem of ending poverty with public policy. Point well taken, but I had a few objections. I felt like he generalized a bit too much about food banks. For example, the Oregon Food Bank, where I used to work, has a vibrant public policy department and sees policy work as part of its mission. Many other food banks do the same.

Inclusion put out a new report on communicating a compelling anti-poverty message, and, as anyone who follows this debate might expect, the American public isn't that keen on addressing poverty when it's defined as such. But to me, the report had a few surprising findings. First, the public isn't that receptive to messages that redefine the poor as "deserving" workers. Given these findings, the authors suggest that in appeals to the public, instead of emphasizing personal stories about the poor, advocates should focus on systemic and institutional reasons for poverty that are beyond the control of individuals. As I review later, other researchers have arrived at very similar conclusions. In addition, this research suggests that the label "working poor" may itself be problematic. Given a cultural belief that if people are industrious they will succeed, this term sounds somewhat contradictory, and is likely to trigger confusion and negative connotations, especially among those Americans who have a strong "belief in a just world."

Greg Ip in The Wall Street Journal reports($) on new IRS income tax return data: The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up sharply from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set in 2000, at the peak of the previous bull market in stocks. The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a bit less than their 13% share in 2000.