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 its 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." So much for posts like this one. I was quite taken by the notion that the public could be convinced that a deserving poor existed, and it needed help. Seems like I overreacted, but it would be interesting to see if more research backs up the author's finding. And guess what else: welfare reform hasn't changed beliefs about the poor. In a series of published analyses, political scientists Sanford Schram and Joe Soss identify each of the previously described factors as contributing to the passage in 1996 of welfare reform. Yet, as they explain, while many centrist Democrats predicted that the victory would pave the way for more meaningful anti-poverty policies, the intensive communication campaign needed to build support for the historic legislation might have inadvertently delivered many self-inflicted wounds. In the public's mind, there remains the interpretation that poverty is fundamentally a problem anchored in personal responsibility and race. Despite many recent focusing events and powerful economic forces, public perceptions today are little changed from the 1980s. Same goes for race- the racist stereotype that black people are "lazy" is alive and well. While core values and psychological orientations play a significant role in structuring American views about poverty, the issue is by no means "race neutral." In fact, based on analyses of multiple national surveys, the political scientist Martin Gilens8 concludes that among whites, the belief that "black people are lazy" is the most important source of opposition to spending on welfare and to programs that provide direct assistance such as food stamps and unemployment benefits. Well, what works? Apparently a message about "responsible economic planning" that goes like this: The nation is relying too heavily on low-wage service sector jobs from national companies without insisting that they pay workers good wages and benefits… Creating prosperity tomorrow requires responsible planning today. Too many companies and decision-makers focus on short-term profits and short-term thinking to the detriment of our workforce. And when we allow one part of the workforce to weaken and struggle, it weighs down the economy for us all, resulting in a lower standard of living. Our nation needs to change its short-term thinking and start building good-paying jobs with benefits, and a strong economy for the long term. With better planning we can repair the nation's economic engine and create a future with a strong economy and good-paying jobs for our workers. Not a bad vision, isn't it? An "economic planning" message could come with a comprehensive and bold agenda. Just because it sounds a little more moderate, more individualistic, doesn't mean it has to be part of a Third Way-ish policy proposal.