Former Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards has, like Billy Preston, declared himself “a soldier in the war on poverty,” and has taken to the road to spread the gospel of two Americas -- one idle and rich, the other intractably poor.

I do not object to being lectured on the evils of poverty from a man that lives in a 28,000 square foot home, collects huge speaking fees from poor college students and treats himself to $400 haircuts. But count me among the many Americans that do resent being offered a bunch of emotionalisms that are primarily designed to spotlight one’s moral uprightness and have little to do with ending the “moral issue of our time.”

Edwards stakes out the source of his authenticity: His humble beginnings. However, he misunderstands the basis of the criticism directed at him. Wealth does not disqualify one from sincerely caring about the plight of the poor; condescension does. That Edwards eschews the idea that the best way to fight poverty is to make sure you do not join it ranks in favor of a message of America’s moral failure is what makes him a hypocrite. After all, his success -- his wealth and high living -- is not the result of government largesse or luck, but of hard work and good choices. 

As further proof of his devotion to the impoverished, Edwards offers his efforts to raise the minimum wage and his plan for government-subsidized jobs for the poor. Once again, rather than preach the truth that the most efficient way to reduce poverty is to ensure a dynamic economy that grows and creates job opportunities, Edwards is content to wrap himself in a blanket of virtue and offer the same, tired, big government solutions.

Certainly, if raising the minimum wage eliminated poverty, we could end poverty tomorrow simply by raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour. We don’t because it would lead to massive unemployment. Minimum wage supporters acknowledge (although begrudgingly) that government-mandated wages increase unemployment. They simply argue that those losses will be offset by the higher wages of those that keep their jobs or those whose salaries are tied to increases in the minimum wage. In addition, according to the Bureau of Labor statistics, the majority of minimum wage earners are young, part-time workers with an average family income of $50,000 per year (or about what Edwards charges to speak to college kids).  Far from helping the poor, minimum wage actually hurts the poor by locking unskilled workers out of jobs.

And what about those unfortunate enough to be on the outside looking in? Edwards suggests creating 1 million, publicly-subsidized “stepping stone” jobs.  The irony can’t be lost on Edwards. He advocates a policy that kills job opportunities for the poor, and then rather than acknowledge the folly and opt to unleash the power of the free market, he proposes yet another federal fix: Government-subsidized jobs!

Here in a nutshell is the root of current liberal thought: A large centralized government can do everything better and more efficiently than the free market. Want jobs? The government will simply create them. Want to end poverty? Issue a governmental decree. It worked so well in the former Soviet Union.

If Edwards desires to be taken seriously, he would be wise to add the language of free markets to the paltry, populist rhetoric he is offering. It is sophomoric, duplicitous or both to suppose that we can address poverty by essentially following the prescription of the last 40 years -- only this time, with more feeling.

---

Joseph C. Phillips is the author of “He Talk Like a White Boy."