The Dynamic Center 11.24.07: World Hunger and the 2008 Election

Posted by ikabod Crane on 11.24.2007

In a Thanksgiving Edition of The Dynamic Center, I want to ask what role if any the issue of global poverty will play in the 2008 election.

First, Happy Thanksgiving to my readers or reader as the case may be. This is a time of year where increased attention is given to the hungry and malnourished population within the United States. Many stores and civic organizations contribute to food banks in and around Thanksgiving, Christmas and Hanukkah. Therefore, I wanted to discuss the global issue of extreme poverty and starvation while some increased attention is being paid to domestic hunger.

The Data is Staggering

The United Nations World Food Programme notes that one child dies due to hunger or hunger related ailments every 5 seconds. In addition, somewhere in the ballpark of 25,000 people die of hunger on a daily basis. This human carnage is real and documented. A simple internet search turns up remarkably similar statistics from the United Nations, government agencies, non-government relief organizations, and religious affiliated relief organizations. The statistics simply reflect an ongoing tragedy of human loss ultimately due to people not having sufficient food for either flourishing or mere survival. This reality demands the question "Why is so little said about 25,000 preventable deaths each day?"

The Democrats and the GOP are Silent, But Should They Be?

It would be as humorous as it is tragic if someone in a staged town hall meeting or in the interactive town hall debate format posed the question "What if anything more should the U.S. be doing to address hunger and extreme poverty?" The odds of this happening are low due to the fact that climate change has received scant attention in the primaries even if Al Gore and others have raised public interest and activism on climate issues. Darfur is rarely discussed on the campaign trail as well despite regular calls for a more effective Sudan policy. World hunger is an equally pressing issue, but it does not have the momentum of two other ignored issues.

However, global deaths being ignored by both major parties is a betrayal of some of the best ideals present within each political party. If I may be a contrarian polemicist, it strikes me that a party that gives more than lip service about elevating the poor should be concerned about world hunger and extreme poverty. Similarly, a party that vows to be the moral party and proclaims itself to be the political avenue for protecting the sanctity unborn life should care about hunger related deaths.

Each party's leaders have gone about revving up support by appealing to traditional issues of jobs, tax cuts, health insurance and national security. Candidates and party bosses can shoulder some of the blame for extreme poverty not being an issue on the campaign trail. On the other hand, candidates respond to voters concerns and much of the blame must also be shouldered by citizens, such as myself, who while troubled by hunger statistics, tend to ignore the issue whenever possible. Therefore, if the Democrats are going to fully live up to their concern for economic advancement and the Republicans are going to fulfill President Bush's hallow call for a "culture of life", the voters must demand that hunger be an issue of importance. Otherwise, it will remain an issue that is not even on the periphery of the radar for either major party.

The Complexity of the Issue

World hunger is a massive problem. 25,000 deaths per day testify to that reality. Addressing the problem involves the collection and distribution of food. However, simply dropping off food staples at ports is not sufficient. Enhancing infrastructure and paying attention to detail when distributing food are keys to success. Similarly, finding ways to enhance local food production and distribution must be part of any plan to address world hunger. Mono-culture in poor areas where arable land is geared toward the production of cash crops contributes to world hunger as well. Developed nations and multinational corporations should encourage a higher degree of local food production along side acres used to produce coffee or cotton. Thus, land and water management are also part of any satisfying reduction in global poverty. On the plus side, confronting hunger in most regions does not require military intervention. That makes such action more palatable to voters.

The Simplicity of Involvement

In writing this column, I did a number of web searches and the results were encouraging. Aid organizations of all varieties are available to those wishing to contribute. The U.N. World Food Programme, Bread for the World and The One campaign reach out to broad numbers of concerned people. Ecumenical and denomination specific relief organizations are readily available to Christians concerned about hunger. Jewish and Islamic relief organizations are also only a few internet pages away. If one wishes for greater involvement than simple internet donations secular and religious community organizations ranging from universities to Rotary International also offer ways to be more informed and involved. The problem of world hunger is overwhelming, but the slide into fatalism is unnecessary because even a moderate increase in activism on the issue of world hunger can lead to saving a human life.

World Security

With 16% of the world's population or over 1 billion people living on $1 per day or less and 40% of the world's population or 2.5 billion people living on $2 per day or less, curbing global violence might well lie in reducing extreme poverty. Radical policy agendas tend to make greater inroads among desperate people. A global system that pushes 40% of the world into unimaginable levels of material need is unstable and vulnerable. The traditional arguments about people needing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they do not like poverty do not hold when a person lives on $1 or $2 per day. If such a person increased his or her economic wellbeing by 300%, he or she would be living on at most $6 per day. The dice are loaded against at least 2.5 billion people on the planet. Game theorists argue that a purely competition based approach to economics does not promote the public interest even if it reaches a grim equilibrium. Win-win economic interactions do not demonize profits, but they do promote the common good. If the U.S. and its presidential candidates really long for national security, they would be wise to address global hunger and extreme poverty because people invested in a good system are less likely to resort to extremism. Average citizens may simply want to think about human dignity and the cultural and biological ties that bind us to those 25,000 people facing death from hunger on a daily basis. In either case, average people and elected officials have abundant reasons for reducing the blight of hunger.