By Judge Greg Mathis

Liberals say they believe in a government that benefits all. Conservatives push family values. Each side will tell you it knows what is best for American children and families. A released study shows that neither party has the answer. The data does make clear that, in rich states, red or blue, poor kids suffer.
If partisan politics are to continue to be the law of the land, the least policymakers can do is live up to the principles they advocate for, and fight for policies and programs in those states where poor children struggle the most.
According to a study released by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, poor children who lack access to quality healthcare and an effective education system live in some of the country’s richest states, many of them located in the Northeast, including New York and New Jersey. These same children also tend to not have a solid family structure or routine in place. And it makes sense: though these states are wealthy, they also have large urban areas, where single women raise their children alone. Poverty, which has a direct effect on a child’s well-being and their access to healthcare and education, is much greater in female-run households than in those led by two parents. States like New York and New Jersey tend to skew Democrat in national elections and are often thought to be fairly liberal in terms of political views. Liberal is as liberal does.  It is not enough to support progressive viewpoints at the polls. The elected officials from these states have the opportunity to create model change. By creating and funding programs that aid families run by a single parent, programs that safeguard the health and well-being of poor children, these states can set the stage for a better America.
The southern states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, rank in the bottom 15 on the list. Greater percentages of poor children struggle in these states than they do anywhere else. What’s interesting is that these places don’t have large numbers of poor children. Southern states tend to be ‘red’ states – or conservative states. This area of the country is also known as the Bible belt. Here, religion is used to motivate individuals politically and socially; politicians use terms like ‘family values’ and express their desire for a more ‘wholesome’ America. Those of us who are truly faithful and live by the ‘Word’ understand that God wants us to help the poor, not turn our backs against them. The hypocrisy of some of the leaders – and voters – from the southern states is detrimental to young lives. Leaders in the Bible belt need to start living up to the images they project. If these policymakers believe in family values, they must demonstrate it, by supporting initiatives that provide for all families.
In a country as wealthy as America, it is a crime that any child should suffer, especially in a state full of resources. According to the study, in the states where low-income kids do the best, many of which are not wealthy states, there is a sense of community, and people look out for one another. Perhaps this is the lesson we should all learn: it truly does take a village to raise a child. Partisan politics are not part of the equation. Better distribution of resources and collaborative approaches are really the only way to ensure America’s children reach their full potential.
Editor’s note: Judge Greg Mathis is the national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Gender Or Race First?
By Judge Greg Mathis
Many people vote for what they believe to be the best candidate. “Best” is defined in different ways – some base their decisions on experience and qualifications, some look at the policies the candidate supports, and some even consider the candidate’s ‘it’ factor or charisma.
In an ideal world, voters should support the candidate whose political ideology would help create a better life for their families. In American society, however, race, gender and religion also play a role in electoral politics. One would be naïve to think that it doesn’t. 
My question: if all candidates were created equal, with the only difference being race and gender, which would you chose?
Historically, both African Americans and women have been denied access to equal opportunities. For many years, women were denied an education, the right to vote and were relegated to a life as a homemaker.
Once allowed to pursue careers, women were denied equal pay for equal work and many had to endure the unwanted sexual advances of men in their workplace.
Additionally, for many years, women were denied reproductive rights and, despite the support of millions of American women, the Equal Rights Amendment, which would guarantee equal rights under the law, regardless of gender, was not passed.
African Americans have endured generations of slavery and oppression and the psychological traumas associated with both. After emancipation, American apartheid limited the educational, social, political and economic growth of African Americans, creating an education and wealth gap between Black and whites that is still a reality in today’s society. Though the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, African Americans were still denied access to opportunities in the workplace and in the educational system. Furthermore, current practices within the criminal justice and school systems perpetuate a cycle of inequality. 
Both groups – women and African Americans – have overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles to get where they are today. And both groups continue to fight for justice. 
In the political arena, candidates draw from their experiences as members of these groups to form the basis of their political ideologies. These value systems are what attract voters. 
Many voters support candidates they identify with, candidates who understand their personal struggles and who have a plan for easing their burdens. Knowing this, I’d like to pose a question to Black women: If you believe Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s beliefs and policies equally benefit your interests, who do you vote for? The white female or the Black male? If each candidate supports a platform for change, change that you believe is necessary, who do you support?
You be the judge.
Editor’s note: Judge Greg Mathis is the national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Cheaper To Educate Than Incarcerate
By Judge Greg Mathis
The United States imprisons more people than any other country in the world. The majority of these people – 80 percent – are locked away for drug-related crimes, many of whom are low-level drug offenders. The country’s increased prison population has led to weakened communities, particularly in urban areas, and a generation of young men, and now women, who are released from prison without the skills they need to thrive. Yet, America continues to imprison drug offenders, despite evidence that this method is ineffective, not to mention expensive. Study after study shows that it is far cheaper to educate and rehabilitate than it is to incarcerate. It is time for this country to realize that the current system is not working and develop one that does.
Though the American government has long waged a war against the drug of its day – alcohol in the 1920s and 30s – the contemporary war on drugs began in the 1980s, when crack cocaine began to devastate urban areas. The war was more of an attack, targeting poor people of color. Instead of focusing on anti-drug education and rehabilitation of addicts, the war mainly centered on arresting and imprisoning users and dealers. The passing of mandatory minimum laws were one of the main weapons used. These laws required judges to hand down mandatory sentences for drug offenses, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the crime. The laws also required longer sentences for crack cocaine offenses, an urban drug, than powder cocaine, a drug long associated with whites and money.
Though the country is now taking steps to move away from mandatory minimums, the damage has been done. Young men, and women, have spent years in jail, many for nonviolent drug offenses, and are uneducated and unable to properly provide for themselves or their families, weakening the core of urban communities.
An authentic war on drugs, one that was designed to solve the problem at its root, would have sought to understand why young people would risk their lives and endanger their communities to engage in drug-related activities. Did they think there were no other ways to make money? Did they have the skills to find other lines of work? Or, were they using drugs to escape some past trauma? Once these questions, and others, were answered policies could have been set in place that would have kept many of these young people off the streets and off of drugs.  Instead, America designed a plan of incarceration, punishing individuals who were victims of a system that was created by the government itself. It is no secret that U.S. foreign policies at the time allowed foreign military groups to smuggle and sell drugs in this country to fund weapons purchases. Though many deny the claims, substantial research supports them.
In the 20 or so years since the war on drugs began, the only thing that has changed is the number of people in prison for drug-related crimes and the amount of money this country spends on incarcerating people who can be rehabilitated. A new strategy is clearly needed. The government can begin anti-drug counseling in schools, and not those superficial ‘just say no’ campaigns. Young people need access to counseling that will help them address the root issues of drug abuse. Would-be drug dealers need to be exposed to other ways of life; they need skills training and mentoring to help them stay on track. And for those who slip through the cracks?  Instead of prisons, they should be sent to drug schools, where they will receive substance abuse counseling and/or job training. These methods work. They reduce recidivism rates. They save lives. And they save taxpayer dollars. It is time America starts using them in earnest. 

Editor’s note: Judge Greg Mathis is the national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Return To Top