Those of us who lived through it will never forget the left’s
unceasing campaign blaming
Ronald Reagan for the homeless in the 1980s. It was a vicious
campaign, replete with the typical name-calling and nasty
hyperbole. To this day, liberals haven’t let go.
“Reagan deliberately created ‘homelessness,’”
writes one observer at the Democratic Underground.
Adds
Peter Dreier, a well-known progressive who teaches at
Occidental College: “[A] fitting tribute to [Reagan’s] legacy would
be for each American city to name a park bench — where at least
one homeless person sleeps every night — in honor of our 40th
president.”
The left launched an unceasing campaign from Reagan’s first year
in office until his last, as if there had been no such thing as a
homeless American until Ronald Reagan took up residence at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Reagan biographer Lou Cannon noted how Reagan had been in
office mere months and liberals were already erecting tent cities
outside the White House intended to evoke images of “Hooverville”
during the Great Depression. These mock shanties were declared
“Reagan ranches.”
Naturally, the mainstream media jumped on the bandwagon, merrily
aiding and abetting the campaign. You couldn’t turn on CBS
Evening News with Dan Rather — the worst of all of them —
without getting your regular nightly
homeless update. The Big Three of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings,
and Tom Brokaw (CBS, ABC, and NBC) sent their camera crews across
America for dramatic interviews with these suffering souls
victimized by Ronald Reagan’s Decade of Greed. In a snap,
Phil Donahue would find himself a gorgeous, brilliant, saintly
mother of four with a doctorate in astrophysics living in a
dumpster in southeast D.C.
And the whole sorry mess was laid at the cold, uncaring feet of
Reaganomics. It was a giant national tragedy.
Of course, once Bill Clinton became president, the tragedy was
suddenly over, as the homeless magically disappeared; that is, they
disappeared from media attention — much like how Iraq immediately
exited the media’s headlines the day George W. Bush was gone. For
our “journalists,” it was mission accomplished. The homeless had
served their purpose.
Why bring this up now? For a crucial reason that
every conservative ought to know:
There are more homeless right now, at this point in Barack
Obama’s presidency, than there were at this point in Reagan’s
presidency. That’s significant because the homeless, at this point
under Reagan, were used by
liberals to torpedo Reagan’s reelection bid. And yet, today,
liberals are completely silent about the homeless under Obama.
Liberals have not turned the homeless into a propaganda issue
today, as they did in the 1980s.
Here are the facts:
First off, it’s difficult to get numbers on the homeless. They
don’t register like the unemployed do, or like those filing for
welfare benefits. Calculating the homeless requires careful study.
HUD did just that under Reagan because of the utter hysteria by
liberals. Homeless advocates like the late Mitch Snyder spoke of
millions upon millions of homeless (three million, imagined Snyder)
wasting away on the streets. One account claimed 250,000 homeless
in Chicago alone, which was ridiculous — but the press dutifully
reported it anyway.
And so, HUD in 1984 released its report, estimating
250,000-350,000 homeless at the end of 1983. That was the data
going into Reagan’s fourth year, and just as the Reagan boom was
starting.
As Professor Andrew Busch notes, even by the late 1980s, most
studies placed the homeless around 300,000.
As for today, under Obama, the most recent study is a report by
the National Alliance to End Homelessness, titled “State
of Homelessness in America 2012.” That report provided data
through the end of 2011, heading into Obama’s fourth year. It
listed 636,017 homeless in 2011, which is double the number under
Reagan.
The report actually contends that the number is down slightly
from 2009, when the figure was 643,067. The report suggests that
this tiny decrease might be attributable to the decrease in
homeless military
veterans: “The largest decrease was among homeless veterans,
whose population declined 11 percent. The number of homeless
veterans went from 75,609 in 2009 to 67,495 in 2011, a reduction of
about 8,000.”
But that hardly suggests improvement. The reports laments that
“While the homeless population decreased nationally, it increased
in 24 states and the District of Columbia.”
In fact, I would expect that the total homeless for 2012, which
we don’t know yet, is surely much worse than 2011, given the sharp
rise in food stamps and the continuing chronic unemployment.
Either way, 636,000 homeless is stunning. They even include the
likes of
Erin Moran, who played “Joanie” on the 1970s hit TV show,
Happy Days. And anyone who has been to any major city
knows what I’m talking about. I’m seeing more homeless than I’ve
ever seen before. A friend of mine told me about two Australian
friends who recently visited San Francisco: “They were simply
appalled at the number of homeless everywhere in the city. They
commented that on almost every street there were homeless hanging
out.” I saw the same recently when visiting very rich and very
liberal Santa Barbara.
The homeless are everywhere, especially in cities run by
liberals.
But more to my point here: Why do liberals, particularly in
their media, only seem to care about the homeless when a
conservative like Ronald Reagan is president? We know the answer.
They use the homeless as a political weapon, and they wanted to
hurt Reagan and want to help Obama. It’s that simple.
As for Obama, this is yet another awful economic indicator, but
an unappreciated one. Think about it: we’re all painfully aware of
the systemic
unemployment, the surge in food stamps (from 32 to 47 million)
and welfare (up
32 percent in four years), the record deficit, the record debt,
and terrible GDP growth (1.3 percent currently). It’s the
ultimate non-recovering “recovery.” And now add the homeless to
this economic disaster.
Of course, I don’t expect CBS Evening News to bother
itself with the homeless. I’m not naïve. However, conservatives and
their media sources might want to consider doing some stories, some
blogs, some video posts. Where’s Fox News? Where are the
conservative bloggers and websites and magazines? Gee, it’s not
like the homeless are hard to find.
