When President Bush arrived at the White House in 2001, he told the nation that his policy to confront poverty would be that of a “compassionate conservative.” His main idea was to create initiatives based on alliances with faith communities, which would create “armies of compassion” to head up the war on poverty.

Although at first glance this idea can resonate with a large number of people, the ideology on which it is based has profound limitations. To begin with, poverty is not a problem that can be solved only with compassion, although compassion is something important in any transaction between human beings. Poverty in this country and in many others is an economic problem that has its roots in structural inequalities inherent in the current production and distribution systems.

In order to solve the poverty problem we have to start by understanding the reasons behind it and what perpetuates it. It is not enough to feel compassion for the poor; we have to take on a social commitment to create the impetus that will establish the necessary conditions to achieve the change we seek.

The premise, on which many conservatives, including Bush, base their ideology, is that poverty is something that the poor need to take care of on a personal level. They believe that it is enough to become determined not to be poor, to work hard, and be well behaved, in order for things to change, and eventually will achieve the American Dream. What they do not take into account is that we are not all born with the same access to education and health services. We did not all have parents to guide us and give us emotional and economic support to get ahead in life.

They also fail to consider that currently a high percentage of families that work continue to live in poverty, not because they are not working hard enough, but because the kind of work to which they have access pays a salary and benefits that are insufficient to escape poverty. In order to stop being poor, they need to earn a salary that allows them not only to subsist and to have the basic necessities, but one that allows them to save and create economic and human capital that they can use to build a better future.

When Hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New Orleans, Bush had to face the reality of the inequality and extreme poverty that exists in many regions and cities in this country. It was impossible to deny the existence of the extreme poverty we all saw on television. Again, he promised that he would do everything possible to solve this problem, not just in New Orleans, but in other regions where similar situations exist, according to him, as a consequence of racial discrimination. But again, they remained promises. And because of his unrealized promises, I give Bush an F.

The reality is that during the Bush presidency, poverty in the United States has increased. More than 37 million people live in poverty, and this represents 13 percent of the populations. The proportion of children who live in poverty is 23 percent, the highest among industrialized nations.

It is hard to understand how in a country like this one, without a doubt one of the most generous in the world if you consider the amount of money donated annually to philanthropic causes, there is no national policy that guarantees the basic necessities of its most vulnerable citizens, something that exists in other industrialized nations. It is incomprehensible that there is not universal health insurance, free child care for parents who work, affordable housing, and a minimum wage that allows everyone who works to live in a dignified way.

The philosophy of blaming the victim is something that we rejected emphatically in the 1970s because we understood that no one “decides” to be poor, just like no one chooses in what family or to what socioeconomic class they will be born. Now we have an opportunity that we cannot ignore to change the focus and the way in which we analyze the causes of poverty, and to highlight the necessity, as much a moral as an economic one, of eradicating it once and for all, making it a national priority with an action agenda for the next administration.

Lilliam Barrios-Paoli is president of Safe Space in New York and was a member of the Economic Opportunity Commission under Mayor Bloomberg.