What you described is an extreme example of what it is to be poor. But what can any leader really do for the poor. Even if the Government gave every poor person a thousand dollars a week, they would still be poor. Originally Posted by acp5762They can establish basic things that change the rules and roadblocks. To so so requires resources. Of course those who do not face the roadblocks think nothing should change, thus Conservatives wish to Conserve. Those who see roadblocks in front of them--especially ones they feel were placed there to "keep them in their place" feel it is the government's responsibility to remove the roadblocks. As always, the right answere is almost always in between.
I don't know that a "leader" can do much of anything, but a government can (different from "should"). On the positive side:
They can end slavery.
They can expand sufferage.
They can increase litteracy.
They can invest in widely accessable, widely applicable infrastructure.
They can improve life expectancy.
Most would agree that these are all "good" things, but since they are not free, the real arguments are "who pays for them?" Those who benefitted from the unfair roadblocks? Those who will be helped by removing the roadblocks? Everyone?
That is the hard part, for it will never be seen as "fair" by at least some of the people.