The first visit to the food bank is always the hardest, Michelle Venus, 52, said.
“Not while I was there,” she said. “But before and after.”
Four years earlier, she had been a homeowner in a US$75,000 a year job. She had donated to the food bank’s fundraising drives. Now she was there to pick up food she could not afford to buy.
“It was not what I’d expected for myself or from myself. It was just a really hard day,” she said.
Mark Weaver, 54, the former chairman of nearby Loveland chamber of commerce, tried to avoid the gaze of acquaintances he had met when he attended the food bank’s galas.
“It was very humiliating,” he says. “I used to take clients to their events, and all of a sudden I’m living below the poverty line.”
He used to earn a six-figure salary, plus commission, plus benefits, and also chaired the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance, which lobbied local politicians on behalf of the business community. He made up his mind to go to the food bank after a friend, a well-paid software engineer who had also fallen on hard times, told him to “get over being proud.”
The queue at the Larimer County food bank in Fort Collins, a town of 147,000 in northern Colorado, snakes out of the door and is mostly silent. In line there are slightly more people than trolleys. The number of families visiting here has increased more than 50 percent over the last five years. On average they also visit more often and need more food than previously.
In the parking lot there are only two bumper stickers — one for Mitt Romney and one for the US Navy. Inside it is set up like a grocery store. People take what they need, although there are limits for some of items such as bread. From the outside, if you did not know it was a food bank, you might think they were going to the cinema.
People often think they know what poverty looks like until they end up here, and then they realize that it looks like them and many other people that they know. Weaver lives in a nice area. The first he knew that his next-door neighbor was struggling with his mortgage payments was when his house was foreclosed on and he was moving out.
The official poverty rate in the US has risen 19 percent since 2000 with just under one in seven Americans now poor and one in five reporting that they did not have enough money to buy food last year.
However, since the beginning of the financial crisis it is the “precarity rate” that has really taken off — the number of people who feel economically precarious. Those who fear poverty, look it straight in the eye at the end of every month, face a constant battle to avoid it or slip in and out of it while struggling to retain every semblance of middle-class stability. People who may have high-school diplomas, college degrees, pensions, good credit and mortgages, juggling aspiration and reality, who find themselves one lay-off or an illness away from a steep and dizzying descent into hardship.
More than the half the people who use the Larimer County Food Bank, which is based in Fort Collins, are working. One in 10 have at least a college degree, almost a third have no health insurance and more than half have unpaid medical bills.
“There’s been a real difference, not only in the number of people that we serve in recent years,” the food bank’s executive director Amy Pezzani explains. “But also in the kind of people we serve.”
“People think that if they’re not living in poverty then they’re middle class. But the official poverty level is such an unrealistic indicator of economic status. Most of the people who use the food bank are working people. These used to be referred to as ‘emergency food pantries.’ But now it’s like people are having an emergency every day. It’s really just a way to exist,” she says.
Last year the census bureau released a new measurement of poverty, which takes regional cost of living, medical payments and other expenses into account and found a third of Americans are either in poverty or desperately close to it. Half are married, almost half are suburban.
“These numbers are higher than we anticipated,” said the bureau’s head poverty statistician, Trudi Renwick. “There are more people struggling than the official numbers show.”
This is the fragile economic terrain on which the US election is being fought: the needs and aspirations of the ever-expanding numbers of the US’ working poor and the far larger ranks of those anxious about joining them.
These are the people most likely to be offended by Romney’s suggestion that 47 percent of the country see themselves as victims, who most needed the kind of change Obama promised four years ago, and who have been least impressed by the apparent lack of it. These are the people at whom the ads attacking Romney’s record of outsourcing and asset-stripping at Bain Capital were aimed.
They are also the ones the Tea Party sought to galvanize through their populist message against the bailout and in defense of small business. A 2010 poll by the New York Times revealed that more than half of those who identified themselves as Tea Party supporters were concerned that someone in their household would be out of a job in the next year, while more than two-thirds said the recession had been difficult or caused hardship and major life changes.
A slim majority of Americans now define getting ahead as “not falling behind.” That describes life for many here in Larimer County, where between 2006 and 2010 median family income (adjusted for inflation) shrank by 9 percent, leaving around a third of homeowners spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing.
The number of people using food stamps, and applying for heating assistance over the past six years has rocketed. Over the past 10 years the number of children getting free and reduced cost lunches doubled, while in-state tuition fees at Colorado State University, which has a huge campus in town, increased 138 percent.
The Fort Collins Homelessness Prevention Initiative (HPI), which provides one-time grants for emergency rent assistance, has seen a 50 percent increase in the number of people they are helping every year.
“We mainly serve two kinds of people,” executive director Sue Beck-Ferkiss explains. “One are the pay-check surfers who are used to skating by on very little. But we also see more people who are falling out of the middle class. It could be a couple who both worked on contract. The work dries up. But the world doesn’t stop just because your income stops. They wipe out their savings and maybe they end up here.”
Larimer County is a swing county in a swing state. It voted for Bush twice, but went for Obama in 2008. Now Colorado is on the fence and Mark Weaver is right there with it.
Mark is one of those rare species this election. An undecided voter with genuinely eclectic views. He is an evangelical Christian who is pro-gun control and a more humane immigration policy, who wants to rein in the deficit, thinks unions are dinosaurs and is against abortion although he would rather see people’s hearts changed than legislation. He voted for John McCain last time because he did not think Obama had the experience, and was a registered Republican until July 4, when, appropriately enough, he registered as an independent.
Both campaigns are spending millions to reach him, microtargeting the issues they think will swing his vote their way. They are also bombarding him with ads. However, all they are earning so far is his contempt.
“If you took all the money they spent on the political system and elections you could feed the world,” Weaver says.
He is not particularly impressed by either candidate.
“Somebody’s got to fix the economy, but I don’t know that either of them has the guts to do it,” he says. “I’m looking to vote for someone I like and trust; I’ve never been more distrustful of the whole thing. I wish we could vote for none of the above. I want a do-over.”
Mark’s fortunes began to change in the summer of 2009 when he was a human resources manager in a company with 1,500 employees. He was let go and replaced by a colleague 20 years his junior on half of his salary. He could have found other work elsewhere in the country, but that would have involved uprooting his three children, and he did not think that was fair. He got another job in a start-up company that involved a long commute, and which eventually collapsed owing him money. With his mortgage paid off and no debts, the biggest expense for a family of five was healthcare. Since everyone in the family was healthy they contemplated doing without it.
Then his youngest daughter got bitten by a rattlesnake.
“That would have been a six-figure healthcare bill,” he says. “If we’d gotten rid of healthcare at that point we would have been sunk.”
It was around that time he started going to the food bank. He stopped after he got a job at a major book store as a night-time accountant and head cashier paying just US$9 an hour but with good health benefits and is now getting a human resources consultancy practice off the ground.
When Pezzani heard the tape of Romney referring disparagingly to the 47 percent of the country who do not pay taxes she was unimpressed.
“It’s very difficult to see the folks that we’re serving maligned in that way,” she says.
Beck-Ferkiss at the HPI has similar reservations.
“It’s hard for me to believe that Romney is focused on the population that I serve,” she says.
However, Mark says it just confirmed everything he already thought: “It doesn’t surprise me about Romney because he’s always struck me as a stuffed shirt. He’s arrogant, and it’s hard for me to get past that. It didn’t change my mind about him because I always thought that about him. It was exactly the same as Obama saying ‘You didn’t build that.’ Those were exactly the words I would expect to come out of his mouth.”
Michelle, on the other hand, was devastated.
“I was heartbroken,” she says. “I was highly offended. I thought he’s just disrespected me personally. I just don’t think the Republican party cares about people like me.”
Michelle describes herself as a lifelong Democrat. She had not long moved to the Fort Collins area when her husband was diagnosed with brain cancer. They had health insurance, but with only one salary coming in they ate through their savings just to keep afloat.
“We raided our personal accounts to survive,” she says.
She got a job in marketing paying US$75,000 a year and remained relatively comfortable in the 223m2 house she was buying. Then she lost that job and went into consulting.
“I just kept going,” she says. “I [had] lived through recessions before, and assumed I’d come out the other side.”
However, work was beginning to dry up and when her boyfriend of six years killed himself last March she struggled to keep up.
“After that I’d get up to feed my dogs, but that was about it.” When a client complained that she was not meeting deadlines she texted back: “I’m just trying to not kill myself.”
Struggling to pay the mortgage on the house, which had been sold on from her bank to a loan company, she tried to renegotiate. In a conference call with an adviser and the lender, she was told that it made more sense to foreclose on her than change the terms of the loan.
“I stopped paying the mortgage and got the house ready to sell,” she says.
She managed to sell it for a small profit and move into a place less than half the size with her son. It was around this time she found herself crying as she prepared to go to the food bank.
“I just couldn’t make ends meet,” she says. “I don’t go every week. Just when I really need something. When I first went I was worried that I would see people I knew.”
Now she’s starting a new career as a journalist and has scaled down considerably and muddles through.
“I have an understanding mechanic,” she says. “If something happens to my car and I can’t pay him everything he let’s me pay what I can.”
She thinks things are getting better, although she wishes they would improve faster. She blames the slow pace on the Republican congress rather than on Obama.
“He tried to incorporate some of what they want but ever since he got in all they’ve wanted to do is get him out,” she said.
The ramifications of the inability of the nation’s political culture to engage with this increasingly pervasive sense of fragility goes beyond the immediate election. Since the financial crisis began five years ago, the significant shift in Americans’ economic wellbeing has posed a considerable challenge to both national mythology and the political rhetoric on which it is built.
Among other things, the American dream rests on the notion of meritocracy and progress — that those who work hard will get on, that each year will be better than the last and each generation better off than their parents. Since 1977, when Gallup first asked if people thought they would be personally better off the following year, an overwhelming majority say yes every year, even though there have been four recessions. It is not a guarantee of success — indeed, quite the opposite. Inequality of wealth, and the poverty that comes with it, is tolerable on the understanding that there will be equality of opportunity. While only 2 percent described themselves as “rich,” 31 percent thought it very likely or somewhat likely they would “ever be rich.”
“Because differences in income in the US are believed to be related to skill and effort, and because social mobility is assumed to be high,” said Isabel Sawhill, codirector of the Centre on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution in September, “inequality seems to be more acceptable than in Europe.”
However, the recent downturn has delivered a severe dent to American’s self-image. A report earlier this year showed that between 2007 and 2010 the median US family lost a generation of wealth. Most Americans believe it unlikely that young people will have a better life than their parents — the highest number on record.
Meanwhile, as the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein made clear recently, the sclerotic effects of class entrenchment are becoming ever more deeply embedded. In a study titled Pathways to the middle class Sawhill and two colleagues pointed out that nearly two-thirds of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of income stay in that category as adults, while more than three-fifths of children born into families in the top fifth remain in theirs.
However, despite that, it seems belief in the American dream remains steadfast. Eighty-five percent of Americans still believe theirs is the land of opportunity, while other polls over the last four years reveal a sizeable majority of Americans still believe “the American Dream is still possible and achievable for people like you.”
When Mark Weaver reflects on the last few years he falls back on his faith.
“This experience has definitely made me more humble. I think God’s made me more authentically who I am,” he says.
Having moved into a smaller home with her teenage son, Michelle now wonders why she surrounded herself with so many things she did not need.
“When I was working, if I saw something I wanted I would buy it. Now I wonder if I really need it. When I see people in Target getting all these things for Halloween I think: What are you going to do with all that stuff? Where are you going to put it? I still feel the American dream is available to me. I’m not prepared to let that go yet,” she says. “But I no longer think it’s about being a consumer.”
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his