It's time for a Class War

"That's class warfare!" shouted nearly every conservative politician in nearly every situation.

"Would you like paper or plastic?"

"That's class warfare, sir!"

"Honey, does this dress make me look fat?"

"Mam, that's class warfare!"

Good.  That's what I say.  Because aside from being an ingenious response to that last question; it's about time we actually had one of those infamous "class wars" we hear so much about.

"I want a war between the rich and the poor...if I'm told to kill...there'll be a class war, right here in America."  That this song from the 1970's references conscription only heightens the idea that the wealthy or ruling class can dictate the fate and indeed decide the lives of the less fortunate in our society.  For today we have what is known as a "back-door draft," or an epidemic of socioeconomic-induced military volunteerism.  The poor simply don't have many other options.

Conservatives will be happy to extol the virtues of our current state of affairs for you.  They'll tell you that we should simply be happy for the success of the top 400 richest Americans who control more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined (Politifact).  Also, they aren't the "rich," but rather the "job-creators."  They say the reason we currently have high unemployment is because these "job-creators" can't invest capital in the hiring of employees because they are overtaxed and their corporations over-regulated.  Their argument, as it has been since 1980, is that if unburdened the wealthy will produce jobs for the rest of us and that this rising tide will lift all boats.

Unfortunately for those who subscribe to this argument, "trickle-down economics" does not work.  It is nothing more than an excuse for the wealthy to further enrich themselves.  It not arguable that the 1990's were a prosperous time for the United States; with 22 million jobs being created under Bill Clinton's tenure alone (Politifact).  Clinton mainly eschewed supply-side economics and raised taxes on upper-earners.  The wealthy paid a higher tax rate and there was far less income inequality than we find today (Talking Points Memo).  Then again, since slightly more equitable wealth distribution is supposedly akin to socialism (again, gasp!), to remain as capitalistic as humanly possible perhaps we should just let them eat cake.

We are at each others throats in the country.  This is not coincidence; it is a time-tested divide and conquer strategy.  If the proletariat is consumed with rage over people who aren't harming them such as minorities, immigrants and homosexuals, these groups won't band together to fight the people who are actually screwing them.

At least metaphorically, it's time for a class war...

CHARGE!!!

A Force for Good

We sure do love our liberties here in the United States.  To be able to say, have, and do anything we want in any way we choose to do it is a pillar of American individualism.  So naturally our government should get out of the way, stop obstructing business' god-given right of exploitation, and release our precious freedoms from the stranglehold it currently has over them.  That was fun, wasn't it?  Well enough fun, because it's high-time we exit the albeit humorous realm of fantasy and re-enter the real world we actually face.

Then again, it is entirety possible this sarcasm is misplaced.  For as best one can tell, there must in fact be two Americas.  We're not talking about John Edwards' 2004 campaign for the Democratic nomination here (though given the even greater chasm that now exists between the haves and have-nots, we probably should be), no we're talking about a real alternate universe here.  One where tax rates aren't already at their lowest levels in a half-century.  But in all seriousness, when we as a people can't agree on actual facts, this is probably an indication that our discourse is far too polarized.

A conservative running for congress today is a walking, talking, self-fulfilling prophecy.  This is not meant as an insult, but rather an acknowledgement that one who runs on a platform of "government is bad" is going to look after that institution.  If government is so horrible, then why are Republican candidates so desperate to jump aboard this sinking ship?  You wouldn't know it based on its current atmosphere, but government can in fact be a force for good.

This is not to say that it can or should attempt to solve every problem, but there is no reason free-enterprise cannot coexist with a strong democratic government, as it does successfully in most European countries.  The false narrative of government as a four-letter word serves to undercut the potential good it could be doing for people who need it desperately.  The great rescission showed us what the free-market will do to these people if left to its own devices.  But aside from the common-sense safeguards we still have yet to implement three years later (The Dodd/Frank legislation being about as watered-down as a baseball left out in the midst of a monsoon), protection from the negative should also give way to germination of the positive.

Despite conservative insistence to contrary, history shows us that this can in fact be done.  Economists and historians alike both point to the 2008 economic collapse as our worst financial disaster since The Great Depression.  Does it then not make sense to seek out what remedies worked well in the 1930's and use that knowledge to help us today, as opposed to gutting successful government programs dating back eighty years?  We are of course referring to FDR's New Deal.  To state it mildly, the steady stripping away of those vital reforms over the last thirty years was certainly as big a contributor to our recent collapse as was a low-income family wanting to own a home in George W. Bush's Ownership Society.  Even in the latter case, the blame should reside with the predatory lenders themselves - not the families who were taken advantage of.

Some say the "failure" of the 2009 stimulus package disproves the idea that a New Deal-type government jolting of the economy can succeed.  This silly propaganda has seeped into the consciousness of many Americans because it is always difficult to prove a negative.  Though I have my own qualms with it to be sure, one cannot easily run on the idea that it prevented and even greater disaster, a view most economists accept.  But let's make this simpler; in fact let's remove economics from it all-together.  If our government has the ability to get an out-of-work person back into the workforce, restoring his/her life and dignity; it should simply do it.  At what point does this cease to be a financial issue and become the moral imperative it truly is?

Let's spell it out as bluntly: our fellow man is suffering; our government has the tools at its disposal to make it stop.  Simplistic?  Perhaps.  Naive?  Maybe.  Idealistic?  Probably.

The right thing to do?

Absolutely.

It Takes Two to Tango

Divided government, checks and balances, rigorous debate; it all sounds so wonderfully democratic, does it not?  Well too much of even an otherwise good thing looks as if it may spell doom for whatever remnants of actual legislating that could be salvaged out of the 112th congress.  As the 2012 elections draw ever closer and lawmakers becoming less risk-averse, it will only be that much more difficult to tackle big issues requiring tough votes.  Once again we will witness selfish politicians put political self-preservation ahead of substantive legislation, and real people will continue to be hurt as a result.

But why is it really that nobody in the GOP can stick their neck out to offer even minimal praise for an Obama proposal (let alone cast a vote in favor of it), including ideas they themselves have often championed?  We cannot say for certain, but the purity test for congressional Republicans and the weeding-out of moderates from their ranks has left only reactionary fervor; moving the ground on which compromises can be forged with Democrats further and further rightward.

This conservative stubbornness contrasts sharply with the more inclusive, common-ground seeking White House.  Throughout his presidency, Obama has continually reached across the isle with olive branches, only to witness Republicans subsequently snap them in half.  He has particularly made a habit of squandering bargaining-power for the foolish notion of somehow currying favor with the right.  Well it takes two to tango; and whether he genuinely wanted bipartisanship or was simply playing to independent voters, it doesn't change the fact that the other side his zero interest in working with him.  Take the much-maligned American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the "Stimulus;" the bill already contained hundreds of billions in tax cuts before Republicans even got the chance to demand them!  Despite this, they have spent the last two years railing against the package; though this hasn't prevented them from gladly accepting stimulus funds for their budget-challenged states and districts.

Some would argue that one should never compromise on important principals, and thus congressional Republicans are right in refusing to cooperate with a socialist (gasp!) like the President.  But for a party that recently ran on a slogan of "Country First," it seems more than a little hypocritical to flatly state that making Obama a one-term president is the GOP's number one priority, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently did.  Why pass legislation to revive the economy when an economic recovery aids Obama's reelection chances?

Let's hope the tenor of the President's "jobs speech" last week is a signal that he is through being the nice guy, but will instead have the sense of urgency to start being the more fiery and combative leader these extraordinary times demand.