Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Economic Class Is Finally a Presidential Campaign Issue

Posted by David Sirota, Open Left at 12:12 PM on January 11, 2008.


On the Democratic side, Edwards class-based campaign has pushed candidates like Clinton and Obama to lately vent more populist themes

Economic class is the taboo subject in American politics, to the point where the word "class" itself has been made into something of an epithet by politicians deriding opponents for supposedly waging "class warfare." Of course, most often, those deriding "class warfare" are the corporate elite, Washington insiders and their Punditburo spokespeople within the major media institutions - that is, the six and seven-figure-salaried upper class that is waging a vicious class war on the rest of us. At a time of increasing economic inequality and decreasing social-class mobility in America, these people will do anything to avoid class taking center stage in American politics. But as I show in my new nationally syndicated newspaper column today, class is forcing its way into the 2008 presidential contest - and that's a good thing.

Democrat John Edwards and Republican Mike Huckabee are the messengers of class politics in this election - the Huey Longs as I called them a while back. As Reuters today reports:

"Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards...Edwards' tone and language on the campaign trail have increased business antipathy toward him. His stump speeches are peppered with attacks on "corporate greed" and warnings of "the destruction of the middle class.'...But this year Edwards is not alone. Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, sometimes also rails against corporate power and influence, tapping a populist current that lies just below the surface of U.S. politics."

On the Democratic side, Edwards class-based campaign has pushed candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to lately vent more populist themes (though Obama's underlying message remains class-averse). That stands in contrast to the Republican side, where the rest of the field against Huckabee is digging in promoting more Bush-style upper-class warfare.

Reuters notes just how courageous and groundbreaking class-based politics really is. "Open attacks on the business elite are seldom heard from mainstream White House candidates in America," the news service reports, "despite skyrocketing CEO pay, rising income inequality, and a torrent of scandals in corporate boardrooms and on Wall Street."

This reality exists because such full-throated populist politics is almost impossible in a campaign system that typically rewards candidates with the most money. It's difficult to indict corporate greed and the elite's war on the middle class, and then convince those same corporations and that same moneyed elite to contribute to your campaign. So, as I've said before, the fact that both Edwards and Huckabee are even competing for their parties' respective nomination in spite of such Establishment anger and financial disadvantage that comes with populism shows just how powerful their message is.

Some will cite Edwards' trailing his competitors as proof that his message isn't working. That's just silly. He's trailing for two reasons: 1) He's being grossly outspent by two corporate-funded candidates and 2) His opponents are starting to co-opt his message in an attempt to blur the distinctions between themselves and him. We have to look no further than Clinton's New Hampshire victory speech to see what I'm talking about. She is the top recipient of health industry campaign cash - a person who has publicly defended lobbyist influence in Washington. And yet, with a straight face, she is berating "the drug companies [and] health insurance companies." Similarly, even though he is the top recipient of Wall Street campaign cash, Obama has taken to railing on lobbyists and Big Money. If you don't think that's the result of Edwards' influence in this race, then I have some real estate to sell you...

Huckabee continues to lead the pack in many states-and it is because of rhetoric like this from his latest ad:

Notice how he leads off and concludes the ad talking specifically about class. It invokes the same kind of mental imagery and class populism as this 2006 ad from Ohio's Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown - but it is from a Republican. That is just absolutely amazing - and exciting for those of us who, regardless of party, want to see real change in this country's political debate. This is a populist campaign like we've never seen from a Republican.

As I say in the column, many of the proposals underneath his class rhetoric are punishingly regressive. However, I maintain that his influence in this race in helping make economic class a major issue is critically important. And the increasing anger you see directed at him from the likes of the George Wills, Joe Kleins and corporate front groups says something very good about his campaign: It says he's scaring precisely the right people.

Go read the whole column herehere and here to listen to my discussion of the column with Jay Marvin on Denver's AM 760 this morning. If you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site.

Digg!

David Sirota is a veteran political strategist and author of Hostile Takeover, a New York Times bestseller about the corruption of both political parties.


Fox News Spins History (Again)
The New Deal was responsible for extending the Great depression, according to the "fair and balanced" propaganda channel.
December 25, 2008.
Maddow Busts Morgan Stanley Board Member for Lack of Transparency
Last night, Rachel Maddow did something I never thought I'd see a journalist do ...
December 24, 2008.
Obama Backs Off Promise to Pass Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil
Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it looks like Obama is breaking some promises.
December 3, 2008.
Scathing Editorial in the NYT Critiques Obama's Economic Team
Will progressives now start claiming the New York Times "hates" Obama?
November 25, 2008.
Study Shows 'Center-Right Nation' Narrative Spiked Immediately After Election Day
We're not talking about theory anymore -- we're talking about empirical fact.
November 22, 2008.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Edwards blows
Posted by: g50 on Jan 11, 2008 2:00 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate trashing what people do with their lives - I think people should be respected. And I like Edwards' wife. Also, I liked Edwards when he was a late 1990s pro-globalization Clintonite.

But for Christ's sake, this Edwards dude doesn't believe a word coming out of his own mouth. He is saying it because you want to hear it bad enough you will overlook everything he has ever done and been about and support him anyway. Edwards - go home. Do something else. Endorse Obama & try for Secretary of Labor. There is already one Mitt Romney (no offense Mitty but you're as opportunist as Edwards) so let the Republicans have him.

A politician using words in a crafty manner to state something that he or she believes in a more palatable way is one thing - that is probably necessary in a society where people hold so many different views. But a politician stating things they don't even believe is quite another, it is far worse, and totally unnecessary.

Edwards is part of the problem, he is no solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Obama? Give me a break! Posted by: Davidco
» RE: dwards blows Posted by: jeanruss
Class?!
Posted by: buddyedgewood on Jan 11, 2008 6:40 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do not think for a moment any of these candidates are sympathetic to your 'class'. You, me and just about everyone who reads Alternet will never be in their class, therefore we're just slaves to the corporations and old money families of this shrinking globe.

Mark my words, master marketing shill Edwards is no different, despite what his rhetoric says. He’ll tell you the grass is pink, if that’s what you want to hear.

You need to ask yourself what candidate(s) is not/aren't taking money from big corporations/PACs/or even government matching funds. Those are the candidates that actually may have the public’s best interest at heart.

I believe all corporate sponsorship of campaigns should be banned to avoid conflicts of interest. And if a candidate is discovered to have taken a ‘donation’, charge them with accepting bribes and fine the company 100x the ‘donation’ and prosecute the CEO and CFO for racketeering and conspiracy. That’ll make them think twice!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Jan 12, 2008 9:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards is the only candidate who, way back when we had the second travesty of an election occur - actually spoke up and brought attention to this incredibly unfair system the plutocrats hath wrought. Of course the plutocrats didn't do it alone - the believers (read: voters) who put them in office, who bought the trickle down koolaid mantra, who financed themselves into oblivion trying to live a $150K lifestyle on $40K and being told they could do it by the ruthless lenders and financiers....who are now being kicked out of their obscenely expensive and oversized homes....maybe now they might realize finally exactly what has been done to them by Wall Street.

This government is all about financiers and keeping their advantages in place, while pressing down the wages and benefits of the working man. The war on the poor has been very successful. Because of unjustifiable tax breaks to the very top, many important services have been pushed sky high - housing prices, college tuition, healthcare. And incredibly at the same time they have successfully pushed wages down and kept them down.

When will it end? If there is any justice and the next election is for a sane candidate who believes in morality and fairness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I AM NOT AND YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THEIR CLASS
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jan 15, 2008 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you attended public schools. If you own your own teacher you will always pass. Out of 12 years George Bush spent one semester in public school. You don't think he could have passed in a school like we went to.

They are given elite educations. Elite education works. John Paul Getty was the son of a lawyer in Tulsa. He had enough money to send his boy to Oxford. The boy came back and became John Paul Getty. Bill Clinton went to Oxford on a scholarship. It worked.

When are we going to give every citizen of the United States that wants it an "elite education"? No the playing field is not level. They don't want it level.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]