Liberals need the poor so that they have someone to help; however, the poor as a whole are not much loved by liberals. Why? In order for the poor to continue being poor, the escape routes from poverty must be barricaded.
One of these barricades is the idea that certain segments of society are helpless, hopeless, and irredeemable. Therefore, government is needed to force these segments to behave a certain way, and any amount of force is acceptable as long as they are kept under control, because fundamentally, their lives are not worth much. One of these segments is the poor, and another is minorities in general (the two are not mutually exclusive). This is a huge psychological weight that liberalism consciously places on the shoulders of the poor; by telling them over and over again that they are helpless and need assistance, they start to believe it. Liberalism takes aim at the self-esteem of the poor and to add salt to the wound, reminds them constantly via class warfare rhetoric that there are others better off than themselves. This breeds fulminating rage which liberals enjoy, much like people enjoy small puppets hitting one another.
Flowing from this first barricade is a supporting one – the poor are too incompetent to raise their own children. This is not true, however, liberalism has made raising children especially difficult for the poor. We know the benefits of a stable nuclear family – emotional, financial, spiritual, psychological. Liberalism teaches the direct opposite, knowing that cuts the feet out from underneath those who have not wealth or education as safeguards — sexual libertinism. Sexual libertinism also undermines support structures such as the church. The open borders faction of liberalism steals jobs that would otherwise be available for the poor. Now in a cauldron of hopelessness, the youth turn to drugs and crime, and so see the police as being the only thing that stands between themselves and happiness. At the last, having created a toxic atmosphere, liberalism washes its hands of all responsibility and blames the police for even upholding a minimum standard of behavior. In reality, the police have abandoned the inner cities a long time ago, resulting in a lawless concrete jungle, and the poor are deprived of justice and easily fall prey to hating those with more money, because the better off do not have to deal with the problems they do. They are correct in the last observation; liberalism has ground the poor underfoot to keep them as perpetual objects of pity.
Now say that you are raising children in this environment. You are not free yet, for Child Protective Services is called in to monitor and control your efforts. So, the state has deemed that really, the poor cannot and should not raise children as they see fit – the better arbiter of childraising is the government. That is ridiculous on its face, but that proceeds naturally from the assumption that the poor are helpless and hopeless. The middle class by and large, has been left untouched by CPS, but that too is changing. The objective is for all families to be brought under the control of government, because nothing in American life should be free of government. The left has a totalitarian mindset; no-one but a liberal deserves to be free. Put another way: is it not enough that government schools have children for so many hours of the day? No, for they are free after school and on the weekends; there is still space left for the government to grow and control more of childrens’ lives. CPS grows as public school shrinks in influence, I suspect.
Another barricade to leaving poverty is the denial of the family as a beneficial goal — in other words, why bother raising a child at all? Liberalism attempts to supplant the natural desire to marry and have a family with no-holds-barred sexuality and then absolving people of the results of such panmixia, with the universal solvent of abortion. Abortion physically, mentally, and spiritually wounds women, and makes it much harder to have children if they should desire; that is the idea – to keep the poor on a pendulum, swinging back and forth from out-of-control desire to bodily trauma. The way out is self-control and spiritual truth, but the government will never advocate that, because to do so reduces the need for and the influence of government.
Entertainment, characteristically controlled and produced by liberals, is the final nail in the coffin of the poor. Having stolen opportunity, spirituality, education, and self-respect from them, entertainment is their last desperate option. At least they can live out fantasies upon the silver screen, correct? That is where Hollywood proposes completely unrealistic and destructive fantasies about social chaos (The Purge movies are but one example of this; Elysium is another), about the have-nots blowing everything up. There have been some success stories, such as Happyness, but these are rare compared to the nihilism that Hollywood loves to create. Again, imagine yourself – poor, few options, and even your fantasies (video or musical) are all about blowing up other people’s possessions and killing your oppressors. There’s not much hope for a civil society or being someone who creates jobs in that scenario, which again is the point — do not leave the plantation. In reality, if the poor were to attempt some sort of riot, they would be walking into a meat-grinder. So, while the left romanticizes the poor as being holy and noble, they block the exits from a burning theater, and then urge those inside to burn the place down. Irresponsible, evil, and inhuman – yes, but this all serves the goals of keeping the poor people poor, so that liberals can demonstrate their mercy.