A very good article with good questions posed.

I don't know. I am glad Edwards has said something about it, but other than that, I simply don't know. I am examining the top 3 on the Democratic side very carefully for things on this issue and on free trade. I want to see policy proposals that address the pounding the middle class has taken and also that address how badly the free trade initiatives have been for our economy.

by Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 10:32:22 AM
 

Surprised,Really Joel?

The article noted:

"Surprisingly, the attack has come from the relatively unknown Third Way group that is associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. Why would self-proclaimed progressives and centrists put out a report that says the whole economic inequality story is bogus?"

Why surprisingly,Joel? The DLC, with McAllister and From unleashed by Bill Clinton for the purpose of closing the gap between the two parties with respect to corporate donations, has done all it can to subvert and silence the progressive messages from democrats for years now. That they have been very successful at raising large amounts of money is much less important than the sad fact that they have done this by aligning the Dems far too closely to the message of the GOP.

It is fact that the middle class is shrinking, it is that very class which gives the conservatives the most problems, they tend towards being educated, liberal and outspoken, also they vote in large numbers and send their kids to college. All an anathema to the right.

That we do not hear much about this is also fact, but put the blame exactly where it belongs; on Bill and the boys at the DLC. This is exactly why all you loyal dems (not you Joel I know you are not one of those) should be very worried about the '08 elections.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 11:21:50 AM
 

Why would "self-proclaimed progressives" obscure the

real truth about economic inequality? When these very people are essentially members of the Wall St chapter of the DLC? The question practically answers itself.

A strikingly accurate phrase in your essay is "Public policy has helped the rich because the rich have shaped public policy." One can understand a lot about US politics by contemplating the consequences of such mechanisms.

The basic M.O. of the Democratic Party is to try to pass itself off as "the people's party," while quietly pushing the economic agenda one would expect from Goldman Sachs equity traders & hedge-fund managers. The same social types that FDR once called "economic royalists" now dress themselves up as Democrats and call themselves "progressives."

Neither D's nor R's want serious discussion of economic inequality, because that kind of talk can lead to class consciousness, which our official politics prefers to suppress, for obvious reasons. A limited amount of pseudo-populist talk is permitted on the D's side to win support among the rubes, but it's understood this is just showmanship & posturing.

It's too beautiful for words that a schmuck like David Brooks would love these kinds of "Democrats." (And when these types of Dems throw their money behind the inevitable Edwards, Hillary or Obama, one should remember Brooks' praise for the eventual nominee's backers.)

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1226 comments) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 12:50:05 PM
 

Generalizations are always a bad way to go

Re: "Neither D's nor R's want serious discussion of economic inequality, because that kind of talk can lead to class consciousness, which our official politics prefers to suppress, for obvious reasons. A limited amount of pseudo-populist talk is permitted on the D's side to win support among the rubes, but it's understood this is just showmanship & posturing."

The author himself mentioned that Edwards is in fact talking about this. I am more than certain without even bothering to research that Kucinich and other members of the Democratic progressive caucus are also talking about this.

I realize you are a bona fide member of the Blame Democrats for Everything crowd, but at what point do you start caring about being accurate and not spraying about accusations willy-nilly? Just curious.

by Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 1:47:25 PM
 

Good points, Steven. Yes, Edwards is indeed a smooth-talking

corporatist Democrat who plays the pseudo-populist game on TV. His act is very polished, & the Third Way guys from Goldman Sachs will be giving him a careful look. That kind of acting talent attracts attention!

Kucinich has the problem that he's too principled. I'm afraid that when he talks about economic inequality & US militarism, he really means it. This is too bad, because nothing turns DLC-supporting hedge-fund managers off more quickly than this kind of talk, which cuts against their financial interests. Probably not much support for DK from Goldman this year.

You've got me pegged wrong, though, when you call me a member of the "Blame Democrats for Everything" crowd. It's more like, the "Blame the 2-party system which is wholly controlled by the corporate oligarchy" crowd. (But that title is a bit awkward -- too many words. Not as melodious as the one you picked.)

Here's a question for you: Of the 280 or so Dems in Congress, how many do you think are in Kucinich's category? Maybe 5 or 6? In other words, he isn't the Dem Party; he's an exception. If they were all like him, we might not be in this mess.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1226 comments) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 3:09:34 PM
 

I think there are around 70 house Democrats in Kucinich's

category and around 5 Senators. Here is a link to some of them---> click here

But didn't you say in your post that no Democrat would want to even talk about it? Then you backtracked by mentioning that Edwards did, but you couldnt resist a simultaneous dig at him. Which is it? Do Democrats not want to even talk about it or not?

by Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 3:32:01 PM
 

Again, you raise an important point. If you look closely

at what I said, it was "Neither D's nor R's want serious discussion of economic inequality." The word 'serious' is key. It's OK for a Dem to make certain limited references to the existence of inequality. After all, as Joel's article points out, this fact of American life is getting harder & harder to hide.

However, a Dem can only make this reference in ways that fall far short of a class analysis of US society. He/she cannot imply that deep social inequality means there's any deep & systematic deficiency in US society. There can be no implication that our society's economic organization leads inevitably to intensely destructive results; or that our privileged classes have taken criminally unfair advantage of the political setup, to milk it for their own gains.

But a nice light & cheerful reference, such as "We're a great wonderful country, but I believe we can do even better!! -- that's permitted. A Dem can say that somehow by accident, a little itsy bitsy inequality has developed -- but that of course, our wonderfully fair system will soon fix it. (A Repub can't even say that. He has to go with something like "And if any of you are having trouble making ends meet, it's your own fault, because you're too lazy & stupid to get rich under our wonderful & fair system.")

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1226 comments) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 4:31:59 PM
 

AFLCIO and SEIU among others like Edwards on this...

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24946

click here

by Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 6:10:10 PM
 

Education

I would like to touch basis on the education in this country.
The primary goal of any education is to develop a systemic thinking. This particular goal ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT EXIST in the US educational system. As such we have people, a majority of them who never ever thought systemically, do not know what that means and as such are gullible beyond belief. Moreover, the systemic thinking ( similar to the one the author demonstrates here) is considered a source of misery and unhappiness. As a result we have a conglomerate of happy idiots who less and less are interested in the real picture and get even irritated if they get one. We here are so happy that we become even happy with death, like when Anna Nicole dies or our soldiers die or people in Iraq die- the TV rejoices, literally: more ratings! That is why people are more interested in hypnosis. All those words like'analysis', 'statistics', ' science', etc. make no sense anymore because they are used as noise. Monkeys in the human form say those words all the time.

National education must be universal, it must have same standards and it must be concentrated on the systemic thinking process. That first and foremost means that the role model of the school dropout or C- student or a bum who made it big and became a Prez has to be discarded. It must also mean that people who get education when they are young should get a steady job market in their own country.
Otherwise it is not a country at all.

by Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3594 comments) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 1:44:26 PM
 

Those at the "bottom"

Do NOT get much help...I think you need to do a "study" on that too. I have a daughter with a five year old son who is living in a Salvation Army Shelter along with many other women and families in the same position..there is very little help for them...and lord knows I can't help. My own story begins with 9/11, I was one of the 28,000 private airport security screeners, that the FAA and the Airlines used to cover their own butts, by blaming 9/11 on us. No, we were not re-hired by TSA, less than 15% were re-hired...we were not all illiterate, uneducated morons. TSA tested persons (friends, family, even cocktail waitresses they had just recently met) hired, trained and gave them our jobs..BEFORE we were even allowed to take the tests..(we were told we would be fired immediately if we tried!!) And any way, we were in Spokane, WA. no where near Boston or New York on 9/11 and worked for a completely different security company..do you fire all the police because one cop shoots an innocent man? I was laid off, I recieved unemployment insurance...173.00 a week, 692.00 a month, (with no taxes taken out)...my rent and utilities alone were costing me about 650.00 a month..so I went to the Social Service office..they could give me 10.00 a month in food stamps, that was the best they could do for me. And you say those on the bottom can get help...? What world do you live in?

by Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 276 comments) on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 11:49:21 AM
 

I became unemployed 6 months before 9/11

and had four terrible years of unemployment interspersed with short periods of ridiculous underemployment during which I drained my retirement accounts and everything else just in order to pay rent and eat. Everything I had spent nearly 10 years to build was destroyed.

This country needs a FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR better safety net.

by Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments) on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 3:54:35 PM