Why should any politician (specially one who wants to be “the most powerful man in the world”, something with a lot of zeros in its %) be “against the 1%” as if everybody else in that 1% was some sort of monolithic “enemy of the people”?
Melinda Gates is as much part of the 1% as the Kochs, yet politically speaking they are two completely different animals.
[QUOTE=Robert163]
I am very pro socialist as per the European and Canadian model.
[/QUOTE]
Yet Canada and most of Western (and Eastern for that matter) Europe uses capitalist economic systems…how do you reconcile this? Are you opposed to Canada and European capitalism and only support the socialist aspects, hoping against hope that one day they will see the error of their ways?
I accept that many of my fellow citizens (or citizens of various other nations) have strange, often bizarre ideas. I mean, there are the Truthers, the Birthers, the Moon Hoaxers…all sorts of weirdness.
Like I said, I accept that many citizens have odd ideas. If you are opposed to the economic and government policies of the US, and you equate that to ‘capitalism’, then it’s both strange and probably wrong. My guess is you are opposed to where the US sets the bar on it’s own socialist practices (and probably where various other bars are set in the US as opposed to your ideal). Or, maybe you just hate all things capitalism, and you really dislike those aspects in Canada and Europe as well. It’s hard to say really.
No, I don’t remember talking to you about this, but there have been myriad threads on this in the past (and will be uncountable ones in the future). You aren’t alone in disliking what you think is ‘American Capitalism’, though capitalism is really capitalism…it’s the engine that lets the countries you DO approve of do all the neat stuff you do like (and also lets the US do all the neat stuff we do as well). I can understand folks who don’t think the bar is set where they would like it in the US…I don’t think it is either. By the same token, I don’t think it’s set right in much of Europe either (though I DO think that Canada is on the right track and I kind of wish we did things more like them).
Don’t be fooled…EVERYONE has biases. Being able to think about what the other guy is trying to say and at least listening is all anyone can ask for. It’s what this board is all about…and, astonishingly enough, it actually meets the ideal more than it misses it.
My best guess to give a common reference would be someone like Elizabeth Warren, IDK if she is an “enemy” of the 1% but I mean someone like her…
That is 100% what I mean. You have pointed this out to me before. I think it is a very good way of defining terms actually.
Ok, good point, but I have some reasons to be bitter. Basically I am on disability and unemployed. Between a modest government check and help from family I do ok. But I see many struggling people who are left to fend for themselves. Your point that American style Capitalism affords a lot of benefits would be hard to make any sane argument against. But it is not the POV from which I usually approach politics.
Well, you are better informed than I am. I swing from being really interested and wanting to know more to being frustrated and apathetic and not caring to know at all.
On what planet is wanting to rein in the top 1% considered a radical idea? All (90%+) economic growth in the US goes to them and has since the 70s. The government has been captured by wealthy individuals and corporations and is not really representative anymore. Risky behavior by the financial industry has collapsed the global economy. Wealthy groups attempt to muddle climate change debates with denialism. No one has been arrested or charged for crimes leading up to the 2008 crisis.
On what planet is wanting to do something about those problems radical? If anything is radical, it is denying that those things are problems because admitting that would go against ones ideology.
The government has been captured, the economy doesn’t work for large masses of people, the rule of law is breaking down, the media is owned by a handful of conglomerates. On what planet is wanting to address those problems radical? You have to understand when you call wanting to address those problems ‘radical’ you don’t help your own cause, you just make your own cause seem radical.
Wow, it really appears that you didn’t read the first line of the text you quoted.
I was going to say something smart about on my plant we read the posts for what they say, but in all honesty I often don’t and so put my foot squarely in my mouth when I misread what another poster was getting at. As you have done here. I didn’t say that reining in or even opposing the ‘1%’ (whatever that even means) is ‘radical’…I said that painting them as the ENEMY is radical. The very thought process that puts the ‘1%’ as a sworn ‘enemy’ is a radical one. Wanting to ‘do something about those problems’ isn’t equivalent to making them your enemy. Democrats and Republicans aren’t ‘enemies’, even if they are in opposition…at least they shouldn’t be, and I think outside of a few kooks on both sides they aren’t, generally (obviously there are exceptions to this in our own and in other nations histories).
OK, to play Devils Advocate here because I basically agree with what you are saying. I agree with the idea of demonizing people is bad. That seems obvious, right? But I ask you, was Malcolm X wrong for proclaiming the White Man to be his enemy (was his stance before his conversion correct)? In other words, if the other side is diametrically opposed to your interests/welfare and take action both direct and indirect to oppose you, how else should you view them except as an enemy?
Of course he was (I’m assuming he did btw). In terms of actual enemies, I’d say he’d be justified in saying that some white people were his enemy (say, those in the KKK for instance). Some white people were merely part of the establishment and were in opposition to what he wanted. And some white people were neutral or even on his side. Saying ALL white people are the ‘enemy’ is asinine in any context (were white people in Europe, Australia or Canada his ‘enemy’ as well?)…even saying all white Americans were his ‘enemy’ would be grossly wrong.
As it turned out, it was basically white Americans who turned the tide in the initial battles of the civil war (to give this the proper martial theme, since we are talking about ‘enemies’ and all ;)), because they were the majority voters in the US at the time (and are still today, no matter how you parse ‘white’). If they REALLY were his ‘enemy’ then there would either be no black people in the US today or there would have been no change, since it all hinged on their changing attitudes.
I read two Autobiographies more or less back to back a few years ago. One was The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which I presume you have heard of. You have probably heard of his trip to Mecca where he met people of all colors and persuasions and he came home reformed and much less militant. But up to that point in his book he did not have one single word to say about a white person that was in any way positive at all. The other book I read was the Autobiography of Gordon Parks, A Choice of Weapons, (parks was a photojournalist). He was -almost - as critical of white people as Malcolm X was except that if an individual white person did well by him he acknowledged it, freely and sincerely. Parks eventually calmed down in his outlook in an overall sense as well.
The critical point here is both of these authors are/were incredibly articulate and insightful, speaking from first hand experience growing up under die hard segregation, Parks born 1912, Malcolm born 1925. Their accounts are harrowing, overtly critical and pull no punches. But having no frame of reference to their experience, it was incredibly helpful to read their books, even if they did have what people might call a Militant tone. If I had had the same experiences I would of felt exactly the same way.
(hope I am not boring you)
Gordon Parks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Parks
A Choice of Weapons:
http://www.amazon.com/Choice-Weapons-Gordon-Parks/dp/0873517695/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429413651&sr=1-1&keywords=a+choice+of+weapons
Photography:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gordon+parks+photography&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=nR8zVYrZMsqzggTMnIIY&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=681
Both books are in my top 10. The Parks is in my top 3.
I try not to read the entire posts, I read just enough to fill myself with a sense of righteous indignation and then I let my amygdala do the typing. So far so good.
Delightful, thank you.
As far as the Malcolm X/Gordon Parks question. Artists and activists having enemies is a different question than a POTUS having enemies. A president largely has the most powerful array of political, legal and military weapons available to bring to bear on their enemies. An activist and an artist largely have ideas and words to use. The former must pick their enemies much more carefully, lest things get out of hand.
Parks and X were both brilliant men, I’d say Parks was an artistic genius. I’d also say that their point of view was justified given their experiences. People had certainly treated them as enemies, for them to generalize that against the whole race in the short term is entirely understandable. However, both men benefited from their stances moderating as they got older and wiser, and wouldn’t really be suitable as my idea of a national leader until those changes had happened.
Perhaps not “modern” and certainly not Democratic but Theodore Roosevelt was no underling of the wealthy.
Right – in his farewell speech. Just before he left to go live off his lifetime pension(s). But what about during the 8 years that he was in office as President – did he do anything about it then, when he was in power?
agreed
I have two objections to OP’s formulation.
(1) The assumption that supporting X makes one the enemy of Y. If I support gay marriage am I the enemy of heterosexuals? If I support minority rights am I the enemy of whites?
(2) Focus on the top 1% is a scare tactic used to get middle-class voters to vote Republican. A couple who both have very good salaried jobs and a few investments may be in the top 1%, but they may not even be flying first-class let alone travelling by private jet, and won’t be hob-nobbing the way rich campaign donors do. The top 0.1%, OTOH, earn an average $6 million per year.
If you focus on too many people, it causes people to vote Republican. If you focus on too few, then it’s just rhetoric because you can’t raise significant tax revenue from a narrow base.
The problem with Democratic rhetoric in recent decades is that it’s causing the revenue base to shrink, forcing them to become the party of small government alongside the Republicans. Both parties are effectively also anti-tax parties, since Democrats only talk about raising small amounts of revenue these days.
In my view the Democrats are more 1% friendly than Republicans.
Ted Cruz made that argument: “Big government has been very good for the top 1%”. That’s why I’m not sure the Democrats really want to get into a More Populist Than Thou fight with Republicans. The public is not really sure whether they mistrust big business or government more. But neither are very well trusted.
Howso? My impression is the GOP is openly in favor of the 1%. The Democrats are on the fence, but will generally side with the 1% when push comes to shove.
Under the Obama administration taxes on the 1% have gone up (FICA, federal income, capital gains, dividend). Plus legislation (like the financial reform) has somewhat limited their power. The GOP wants to lower their taxes and get rid of financial reform.
On tax policy it seems pretty cut and dried that the democrats are hostile to the 1% and the GOP is friendly to them. The democrats want to raise taxes on the 1%, the GOP wants to lower them. However on other issues like influence in government, creating an economy where workers have power/influence, writing legislation friendly to the top 1%, etc. I think the lines are less clear between the two parties. However evenso I’d wager the democrats are less allied with the 1% on those issues (financial reform is one example. Another would be the progressive wing calling for things like a public option or Rx negotiations, things that wealthy health companies oppose).