Early in the 2004 presidential campaign, vice-presidential candidate John Edwards delivered a memorable speech in which he claimed that there were “two Americas.”  He referred to these “two Americas” several times throughout the campaign.

 

What Edwards meant by his “two Americas” comment was that the United States is broken up into two classes of citizens.  One class (a very small class) was made up of the wealthy and privileged, who got everything that they wanted.  The other class consisted of the majority of middle class Americans, who struggled everyday just to get the things that they needed.

 

Immediately after he delivered this speech, Edwards found himself confronted by a number of citizens who claimed that this idea of “two Americas” simply wasn’t true.  The middle class of America—and even those who fall beneath the poverty line—enjoy a higher standard of living than any other society in the history of the world. 

 

According to the United States Census, about 10% of Americans live in “poverty.”  However, more than half of the people living below the poverty line have color televisions and microwaves in their homes.  Very few are actually “hungry,” meaning that they don’t know where their next meal is going to come from.  Critics of John Edwards argued that he was just using a “scare tactic” to gain political power.    

 

Debates over the distribution of wealth in America can—and will—be carried on by politicians and economists alike, but one thing is certain.  The people of the United States (that includes members of both of John Edwards’ “two Americas”) have it a lot better than the vast majority of people who lived in France in the late 1700s.

 

Crop failures plagued France in the 1780s, leading to a major shortage of food.  This caused prices to skyrocket for even the most basic items (such as bread).  At the same time, the monarchial government in France was nearly bankrupt, so it decided to raise taxes to a ridiculously high level.   As the economy crumbled, the people were in no condition to pay these high taxes. 

 

In hopes of avoiding starvation, many of the farmers and rural citizens of France moved into the bustling city of Paris.  They didn’t find what they wanted.  Instead, the city streets became overcrowded and filthy, and living conditions rapidly declined.  Unfortunately, the king and queen of France seemed oblivious to the problems of the nation.  According to legend, when French Queen Marie Antoinette was informed that her people had no bread to eat, she replied, “Then let them eat cake.”

 

The growing frustrations with the monarchy led to the French Revolution in 1789.  During this violent uprising (in which a common phrase was “Off with his head!”), the people of France rebelled against King Louis XVI, as well as the rich nobles of the time.

 

That sort of poverty does not exist in the United States today.  People are not starving on the streets, and there is no talk of a violent revolution to dethrone the wealthy class.  The increased standard of living enjoyed by American citizens in the 21^st century is a combination of technological advances (i.e. the ability to produce more goods and distribute them to more people), and an effective economy (the democratic system of the United States is much more “economic-friendly” than the absolute monarchy of 18^th century France).

 

It’s not completely fair to compare the modern world with the years of the French Revolution.  While living conditions have increased across the board, poverty is still a real problem—especially for those who are faced with it.  When combating the problem, it is not a reasonable argument to say, “Don’t complain—life is better now than it was 200 years ago.”  Instead, the issue needs to be dealt with in the proper context, using today’s expectations and resources.