Why won't the Democrats make inequality and class into a major issue?

[begin_within]

[Not_Giving_Up]

1. You don't think that we have?

It was the POOR areas of town (most likely to vote Dem) where most of the voting issues occurred. The rich areas (likely repugs) stood in no lines to vote, and had no hassles, compared to what the poor areas had.

[begin_within]

4. I hear most of the Democrats talking about everything BUT inequality. Only

in the debate between Cheney and Edwards was it even brought up, as far as I can remember from the 4 debates, and the person who brought it up was Gwen Ifill. I see most Democrats talking about everything EXCEPT which I personally believe to be the biggest domestic issue of all, the absurdly unequal distribution of money/power in the U.S. (money and power are 2 forms of the same thing in my book, like matter and energy)

[Not_Giving_Up]

7. It's being said, if you really listen

No, they aren't screaming from the rooftops about it, but anyone listening can hear the rumble.

[begin_within]

20. Well they should be screaming from the rooftops about it.

[Not_Giving_Up]

21. Like I said in my other post, some of us are.

What are YOU doing?

I'm e-mailing Senators and Reps from everywhere, not just the red state that I happen to live in. I let them know that, while I don't live in their area of constituency, I feel the need to write to them because my pleas to my own reps will go unheard.

I'm proud to say that I was one of many who e-mailed Senator Boxer to encourage her to stand, and I e-mailed two separate thank you notes to her as well.

[rman]

40. the point is the Dem party says very little about it

they don't think the issue of poverty and inequality is as important as you (and many others) think it is.

Republicans also don't think it is very important.

The question is: where is the political representation of all those people who do think it is important?

60 million working poor is a very sizable part of the electorate. I can't imagine those people think inequality is not an important issue. A true "New Deal"-like campaign, a true counter to corporate rule, a true effort to get the message out, could have Dems win by a landslide.

[jdj]

41. it's because the mouth pieces are rarely poor or lower class

it's like how you feel when you are learning a foreign language, you know you are going to get the words messed up and make a fool of yourself, so you just don't say anything.

I mean, look at Dean and Kerry, they are both blue-blooded.

[Nikia]

2. Because many of them are funded by corporations

I am talking about U.S. reps and senators. It is unfortunate, but what are we to do at this point?

[begin_within]

5. Either force the issue, or resign ourselves to a life at the bottom

[Not_Giving_Up]

8. Some of us are forcing the issue

What are YOU doing?

[amandabeech]

10. Until we have tax-payer funded campaigns, our politicos will

continue to feed at the corporate trough and vote the corporate economic line.

We're trying to get cash from rich tech people and investment bankers who want to feel liberal chic. Those folks are doing well with our economic system and don't care to change it.

It is my opinion that in order to exclude private money from campaigns or to really limit it, we'll need a constitutional amendment separating speech from campaign cash.

I haven't heard too many calls for that one.

[Not_Giving_Up]

12. Some of our elected officials are showing that they know

who they represent. (Boxer for one!) The ones who don't, won't be there after the next election. The people are getting their power back.

[Occulus]

27. revoke corporate personhood, for starters

Easily said, but done? Hoo BOY......

[K-W]

3. Decades of red baiting and purges.

Because its impossible to argue for a progressive economy when arguing the fundemental principles of progressive economics is immediately seen as making you a radical and when no major national institutions have economically progressive people because they were purged at some point.

[Warpy]

6. now that Dean is taking over from McAuliffe

perhaps the party will address this stuff. After all, they're not going to win any elections while they spend all their time whoring for corporate contributions and squabbling over the yuppie vote, which was the dual focus of the DLC for far too long.

The party is going to have to address what's happening to its traditional base, and it's been a 30 year disaster which shows absolutely no sign of improving. They're going to have to address the fact that supply side economics have been a total failure for everyone who is not in that top 0.5% of wealth. They're going to have to address the fact that globalization and the abolition of tariffs has been a howling success for every country on the earth except the United States. They're going to have to address what sending strategic industries to the far east will do to this country in the next big war. And there will be one. Count on it.

If they fail to address these things, then they'll still be infected by DLC-itis, and it'll be time to consider other options.

People seem to vote against their economic interest when they vote GOP, but that party has offered them the illusion of tax cuts. For the past 30 years, the DLC led Democrats have offered them nothing but the procorporate, antilabor business as usual that has been killing them.

[ultraist]

9. Edwards talked a lot about it and still is

His stump speech during the primaries was centered around two Americas: one for the very wealthy and one for everybody else. He also talked about equal opportunity.

People were very taken in with his talk about poverty and how no "child should go to bed hungry" during the primaries. He is heading up a poverty center now and intends to continue to keep this issue in the Democratic dialogue.

Kuchinich also talked about poverty.

I'm not sure if Dean did or not, I didn't follow him too closely during the primaries but he has stated we need to return to our core values, one of which is caring for the poor.

I don't remember Kerry discussing poverty or racism.

[begin_within]

15. Too bad Kerry and Edwards pretty much avoided California, otherwise I

might have heard some of these speeches. At least Kucinich bothered to show up here!

[Not_Giving_Up]

17. They didn't hit Texas a lot either...

You have the ability to get online, you can find the speeches. You can find anything that you really want to online.


I realize that they thought Texas was a lost cause, so therefore a waste of money, but they do need to realize that we have plenty of blue here.

[AP]

42. An aside: IIRC, in the primaries Edwards had raised more $ in TX than all

the other Dems combined, and it might have been something like twice the total of all the rest.

[depakid]

24. And yet Edwards voted for the bankruptcy bill last time around

despite the fact that it will hit the lower middle class and single mothers especially hard.

http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=517§ion=newsroom

When Dems do things like that, it makes them look insincere (which some in fact are)- and it leaves them vulnerable to the whole "you're using class warfare" label.

These sorts of sellouts are why the Dems are poised to remain the minority party for the foreseeable future.

[ultraist]

30. That bill was not passed and I'd have to check the voting records

"This amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 80-17 -- but it was dropped during the secret negotiations that produced the bill headed for the Senate floor. "

80 Senators voted for it but it was dropped. I don't know much about that bill or who voted for it. I'll have to read up on it.

Edwards is big on fighting predatory lenders and very pro big corp accountability and responsibility. He was a people's advocate attorney. Have you read Four Trials?

I'd hardly call Edwards, who was called the fourth most liberal Senator, a sell out. He has an excellent voting record as does Kerry, who is considered very liberal. Granted, they both missed a lot of votes during the campaign, but prior to that Edwards had a 99% turnout with an overall average of 85%.

[depakid]

32. Check Thomas

I posted the list of the Dems who voted for the bill last time around on several threads- I'd run a search for it, but it looks like my star just got bounced... :o

Might surprise you that Hillary voted for it too- even though Bill veto'd nearly identical legislation.

Not to be outdone, so did my senator- Wyden- but then that turncoat also voted for the Medicare scam....

[ernstbass]

45. That just burns me up!

[Grey Ranks]

11. That would be a mistake

People don't like to be confronted with bad things. Much less when they are partly responsible. The middle and upper classes would despise the Democrats for making class a major issue.

[Not_Giving_Up]

13. Why should we care what they like?

They don't care about what we like....they say want they want and do what they want, and anyone who disagrees is just supposed to eat it.

[Swamp Rat]

14. No, the middle class is more than ready to address class issues. n/t

[Not_Giving_Up]

16. The previous poster said that the upper and middle classes wouldn't like

what was being said...that's what I was referring to.

[Swamp Rat]

18. OK, but I was more interested in how one could devine the intentions of

a social construct. ;)

[Not_Giving_Up]

19. Damn, it's late and I'm medicated

HUH??????

On edit...Never mind, read it again, got it!

[Swamp Rat]

23. LOL!

medication... I'm seeing lizards everywhere, especially in Jefferson Parish, Baton Rouge, and all points North of here. :D

[Not_Giving_Up]

26. I have to take Singulair every night before bed

I took it about an hour ago, plus I'm herbally enhanced. Right now, I'm amazed at my own typing skills.

[Swamp Rat]

29. Know what you mean jellybean

:D

[Bouncy Ball]

25. EH???????

Boy you are making a HUGE assumption there. I'd say I'm about upper middle class, and I'd fucking LOVE IT if politicos would FINALLY start talking about the inequalities between the classes in this country, how fucking hard it is to live on the minimum wage, etc.

[Grey Ranks]

53. I Make No Assumptions

If you are looking for assumptions read your own post. Not everyone is an enlightened as you. Which, you should be aware of that fact given who is president.

I am saying that the majority of Americans would not respond well to class inequality becoming an issue. They hold a degree of responsibility in this matter and benefit greatly. When people are confronted with their own inactions, with this own lack of responsibility they generally do not like the person or thing that has done challenged them.

This is based off of personal experience, and years of successful diplomacy with hostile people, or people who would have otherwise become hostile, in many different situations. On what do you base your claim? You attack my position, and my personally, but don’t even make the pretense to speak for anyone other than yourself. I may be a “boy”, but I know people. I know how they respond and I know how they think.

We can make one class an issue, which is what we do. But, we can’t make class an issue. We have to be diplomatic about it. We aren’t just talking to democrats, or to lower echelons of society, we are talking to everyone.

[ConsAreLiars]

22. Some do, some don't.. Follow the money. (n/t)

[Darranar]

28. Because that would involve actually CHANGING things...

Not something either party particularly cares to do.

[ultraist]

31. We need a return to Populism with an all out class warfare

The deal is, it's us against them. Those of us who make less than 200k per year against those who make more (5%). Who would win?

[UdoKier]

33. Because the democratic party is almost as dependent on corporate donations

as the Fascist GOP is.

There are some individual democrats trying to do something about it, but the party relies on corporate (read:right-leaning) donors, and most of the constituents of our party, unlike the GOP aren't exactly rolling in dough. Union membership is at record lows, so we can't depend on the, so it's a hell of a pickle.

[leftyandproud]

34. Because people DON'T CARE.

This is the hardest thing for lefties like us to deal with.

Equality of outcome ranks very LOW on the scale of most Americans. It is not important to them.

[stray cat]

35. Needs reframed as Opportunity for all.

[ultraist]

48. "Opportunity Society" ~ Edwards in recent speech

We do need to push this. ALL of us should have the same opportunities and we don't! Classim, sexism, and racism limit those opportunties.

Those who are affected by racism, classism or sexism can all join up against the small ruling class. In general terms, it's those of us who earn less than $200,000 against the 5% who earn more.

There is something terribly wrong with that income distribution. WTF do only 5% earn over $200,000?

Equal opportunity is a core value of the Democratic party and we should be talking about this, a lot!

[Patiod]

49. Been proven: even poorest people believe they may be rich

someday. Most Americans of all classes have bought into the whole Horatio Alger scenario. They don't read all the studies that show that kids from city schools are flunking out of college, that your speech and your lack of diploma are going to keep most doors shut, that where you live is going to determine the interest rate on your loan.

You're not going to get anywhere attacking the class where most Americans believe they may end up one day.

Agree with dmordue - need to frame it as "we need to create more opportunity for people to be upwardly mobile"

[dpbrown]

36. Because corporations are keeping them from doing so

Corporatism and the enabling of the sick version of capitalism is keeping Democrats from embracing the populist legacy that is going to save them, and all of us.

[amazona]

37. many DO -- I firmly blame the MSM

When a man as witty and well-spoken as Al Sharpton is presented in the media as a buffoon, then I think we have to question who is really at fault here.

Our leaders do their best but they do not own the media that picks and chooses what to report.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Itsthetruth]

38. It's All About Class Now!

Just about every time a Democrat suggests the economic attacks have something to do with class, the Republicans charge them with being advocates of "class warfare". That pretty much shuts them up.

Too bad. It's time to tell the truth and say loudly and clearly:

"Yes, the corporate interests in their political whores in Washington are engaged in a class war against working people. They represent the rich, not the common people."

Does anyone really believe we live in a classless society? That would be a "capitalist utopia"!

[ultraist]

50. It's NOT ALL ABOUT CLASSISM! Racism does exist

But, those who ALSO experience racism or sexism are double hit.

When you combine those who have been limited by racism, sexism and classism our numbers are bigger.

So for the sake of the message, a broad statement works: 95% who earn less than 200k against 5% of those who earn more than 200k works well.

So what if they call it class warfare, it is! And we join with our brothers and sisters who have been discriminated against in more than one way.

[MountainLaurel]

39. They'd have to look in the mirror

And see the extent to which they have abandoned the poor and disenfranchised in the rush to attract middle-of-the-road, wealthy voters.

[Stirk]

43. Because that's not what they stand for. We have two capital parties

in this country, and no real labor party. That was crushed decades ago.

The two corporate parties split the populace with bullshit like abortion, prayer in schools, and other wedge issues. There's no real debate on class issues because both parties like it the way it is now.

[ernstbass]

44. Our democratic leaders are in bed with corporate America

[rman]

46. which isn't very democratic; enter corporatism,

which is very much akin to fascism.

[orpupilofnature57]

47. Just like (PROGRESSIVE) IS AKIN TO PRO-REPUBLICAN.

[ultraist]

51. They can take all the money they want from corps, they still NEED OUR VOTE

So what if they take big bucks from big corps. Who votes? The top 5% CEOs only have so many votes.

WE HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES!

[Itsthetruth]

54. What's The Worst That Can Happen?

And what's the worst thing that can happen to corporate supported candidates who "lose" an election. They go on the payroll of those corporations and make the really big bucks!

It's hardly the end of the world for them. In fact, many launch political "careers" so that they can gain access to those better "private sector" jobs after performing legislative services for business interests.

That's the way it actually works in Washington.

[QC]

52. Because what passes for a "Left" in this country is as bourgeois

as the Charleston Junior League. The average liberal knows and cares little or nothing about class anymore, because those issues are not even on the radar for those who are themselves privileged beneficiaries of the class system.

[Zhade]

55. Too addicted to corporate cash.

Here's hoping Dean helps break that trend...!

[in_cog_ni_to]

56. I would like to see a great big chart on the Senate floor

that shows what the average CEO of a big corporation makes in salary compared to the peon who works for him. That should open some eyes. Problem is, the Dems are probably being paid by that CEO's lobbyist. :(