We need a new term

Eric at Classical Values:

While I use the term myself because it's so readily understood, I've often thought that "homeless" is the wrong label to place on people whose lack of housing is a result of larger problems in their lives. I've taken in homeless people, and while I'm no expert on the subject, I've known some who just wanted to be left the hell alone to live in a tent. Others suffer from mental illness or drug problems which prevent them from working normal jobs and thus paying for a home. To call them "homeless" makes about as much sense as to call them "inappropriately groomed." The name "homeless" falsely implies that a home will fix the problem. Neither free homes, nor a brand new Giorgio Armani suit, nor direct distributions of cash, will cure alcoholism, drug addiction or mental illness.

We used to call them bums.

But that changed in the 1980s: They became the homeless and homelessness became synonymous in the press with the evils inflicted on the poor by Reagonomics. In those days, the holy grail of homelessness was the homeless family. "Homeless advocates" would shop these unfortunates around to the media, who would dutifully write a story about their heartbreaking existence.

They all but disappeared in the halcyon days of the Clinton administration. And, as James Taranto has so admirably reported, the inauguration of Bush II saw the return of homelessness. But the homeless family has disappeared, and the homeless problem has failed to gain traction as a narrative. I'd wager that successes in urban policing, like those practiced in New York City under the Giuliani administration, prevented the return of the homeless family. It turns out even liberals were glad to be able to walk down the street unaccosted. And the myth of the poor guy who's just down on his luck just doesn't cut it anymore.