How can ultra-Rich Dem candidates represent workingclass people?

[sventvkg]

I'm just wondering how these incredibly wealthy democratic candidates and other represenatives, can even remotely have a handle on what the lives of everyday American working class people are like. I mean, is it polling?..I understand that they get emails and letters etc but really, how can we have people who are clearly not in our socioeconomic sphere, effectivly fighting to make the average person's lives better when many have NEVER been a working class person? Sometimes I think, by and large, It's all the same...Both Dem's and Repubs worshiping the big corporate interest...I have MANY disenfranchised friends who just think it doesn't matter who is in power because none of them represent the majority of us out here...I don't know, I just fail to see how we can be truely represented within the system that is currently in place...

[FlashHarry]

1. Oh, Jeez. Here we go again...

[Terwilliger]

3. here we go again?

with what?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. damned uppity workers, don't know our place

we're supposed to give money, vote, and then shut the hell up and let the "responsible" folks do what's best for us.

[bearfartinthewoods]

74. this is one of the reasons i like Edwards. eom

[Hep]

95. yeah

He's the son of a mill worker!

[FlashHarry]

15. How can a working-class person know the mind of the ultra-rich?

It cuts both ways. Maybe an ultra-rich Dem politician spends most of his/her time in the trenches fighting for the poor and middle class in the halls of Congress or in the state houses across the nation, where they can make a difference for thousands, if not millions of people. Then again, maybe they don't. Personally, I don't think it's an issue--or at least I don't think it's the issue.

Yes, our current political system is screwy. At this point in time, you need to be a millionaire to run for any national seat--practically. (adopts Rummy tone) Would I like to see more 'regular people' in politics? Yes. Would I like to see the campaign finance system reformed to the point that special interests and personal fortunes didn't lock out the little guys? You bet. Do I think that will happen in time for the '04 elections? No way. Does the personal fortune of any of the Dem candidates affect my consideration of them? No way.


Sorry. End of rant.

[Terwilliger]

23. sorry?

what about? :D

I understand what you're saying...I just think that most Dems (yes, even Dems) live so far away from the lives of most Americans that I wonder sometimes.

[maha]

49. Hmm, lets' see

The Dems live far away from ordinary people .... the Pugs live WAY far away from ordinary people ... how do you define "ordinary people"?

Historically, the two presidents who did the most to protect working people from the "malefactors of great wealth" were very wealthy indeed. And they were both named Roosevelt.

[fujiyama]

58. And the greens don't..

live so far away from the lives of mainstream Americans?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

24. I think it is THE issue

The record of rich Democrats is pretty clear and consistent. There are plenty of nice rich people of course, and you're not going to hear me complain about FDR, but they do too much talking and not enough listening - the good-hearted ones. Most of them aren't, in my uppity opinion.

"Does the personal fortune of any of the Dem candidates affect my consideration of them?"

It does for me. It's not how much money they currently have as much as their background and connections. We had a whole revolution to get out from under the thumb of wealthy aristocratic families, and every American owes it to our country to keep it that way.

I'll give credit to any of the working middle class Democrats that made it big - Kucinich, Gephardt, Edwards, Clark, Sharpton, Moseley-Braun. I'll hold my nose for the rest of them if I have to.

[janekat]

32. Kerry and Dean were both born into wealthy families - do you blame

them for that?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

34. don't blame them, won't vote for them

what's the problem? Who said I "blame" anyone for being rich? Now when they start using their money to get into high positions in the government, I might blame them for that.

[maha]

51. Teddy and Theodore.

The Roosevelts. Extremely wealthy family. These two did more for ordinary working people than any other two presidents.

[Mairead]

76. "Teddy and Theodore"?

'They' were the same person.

[Selwynn]

100. Who gives a fuck about the mind of the ultra-rich?

I'm sorry but I think we need to focus our attention on understnading the poor, and I don't give a good god damn if a candidate who deeply understands the plight of the poor maybe doesn't identify with the lifestyles of the rich and famous. That's probably the best thing that could ever happen to this country.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

108. yep

I'm pretty tired of catering to their wishes. It seems every Dem policy has to tiptoe around the wealthy so we don't "attack" them or start a "class war".

However, it's fine to be one of those "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" Democrats who are anti-union, anti-welfare, and anti-worker - that class warfare seems to be a-okay with a lot of Democrats.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. they can't and they don't

The best they do is keep the even richer and even more aristocratic Republicans from doing too much damage. Rich Democrats ain't nothing but dodge for the system.

[Terwilliger]

4. WCTV

so, you think the Dems are fighting hardest for the poor and lesser?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. not really

I don't think that Democrats fight for the poor and lesser as you say. I do think Democrats take them into consideration more often, because they need us, and at least some of them are decent people. But I'm under no illusion who they work for.

[maha]

52. Harder than Republicans?

Yes. Although that's not necessarily saying much.

[bearfartinthewoods]

75. who are the "lessers"

i keep hearing that phrase and i haven't a clue to whom it applies.

details?

[Vikingking66]

6. "It's not the gender, it's the agenda"

Some of the most progressive presidents in American history have been outright patricians. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and JFK were all born to money, and it didn't stop them from doing great things for the American working class.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. what did JFK do for workers exactly?

I know JFK cut taxes on the rich, and escalated Vietnam, but what exactly did he do for working class people?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. The 1960 Tax Cut

benefited the Middle Class leading to teh expansion and
strenthening of the middle class.

He also has a role in Civil Rights, though we may argue if
he had not been killed if the Bill would have gone
through.

Having money does not make you automatically an A-hole, but
having money and being a Republican makes that a very good chance

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. what's the difference between JFK's tax cut and Bush's?

Seriously, perhaps you can educate me. Didn't JFK basically dismantle the progressive income tax by cutting the rate for the richest people by a third? How did that benefit the working class?

Oh, you mean, by giving a tax cut to rich people, they had more money to invest, thus expanding the economy? Where have I heard that one before?

[Atman]

16. Answer me this...

"Seriously, perhaps you can educate me. Didn't JFK basically dismantle the progressive income tax by cutting the rate for the richest people by a third? How did that benefit the working class?"

Bush claims business cannot expand and profit without a tax cut. Bush says tax cuts create wealth. Bush says a lot of things.

Could someone please explain to me how the Bush family, the Kennedy family, ANY old rich guy, got that way under the oppressive weight of the early tax structure? How on earth did they do it? Bush says it isn't possible!

Maybe the "old rich guys," the ones that got their money by actually working for it and building stuff, not simply trading paper and exporting jobs, figured out a way to manage a decent lifestyle on the mere several million post-tax dollars they were still able to invest and spend, while the rest of the country also grew and prospered, thereby providing them an even bigger pool of consumers for their products and workers for their factories. How on earth did the wealthy build factories and invest BEFORE Bush's tax cuts? Hell, the Kennedy's and Bush's did it in an era of 70-80% tax rates! Maybe Bush just can't handle his money.

He sure as hell has proven he can't handle ours!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

29. Bush and Kennedy? Can you say Organized Crime?

The Bush's laundered money for the Nazis, and old Kennedy got rich bootlegging - the 1920s equivalent of drug dealing. That's how they did it. Organized crime.

[Octafish]

102. Not quite.

Joe Kennedy Sr. worked hard as a teenager. FACT.

He ran a bank his early 20s. FACT.

He made a mint on Wall Street. FACT.

He MIGHT have made money bootlegging. CONJECTURE.

One more fact. The Kennedys have done more for the Democratic Party and the good of the United States than most.

Here's one more conjecture: Why are you so fast to smear the Kennedys?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

109. Is it really conjecture that Kennedy was a bootlegger?

I've never heard otherwise. The Kennedy fans I know are the ones that told me the story, since I was young. If it's conjecture, what is it based on?

[Jacobin]

19. The marginal tax rate in the 1960's was over 70%

Now its 38%.

Big fucking difference.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

78. Huge difference

Taking into account the elimination of the Estate Tax, the Bush Tax Cut provides 45% of the benefits to the top 1% of taxpayers. The Kennedy Tax Cut provided 6% of the benefits to the top 1%.

Yes, the Kennedy Tax Cut was weighted somewhat heavier in favor of the richest taxpayers, but it also included meaningful tax cuts for all income levels, in addition to ample spending on social services.

[maha]

59. He was the first U.S. president

... to openly support the Civil Right movement, for one thing. He reached out to Martin Luther King and offered support, which was a real gutsy thing to do.

However, white working class people were doing rather well in those days; unions were strong, the economy kept getting better. "Doing something for working people" wasn't as much of an issue then as it is now.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

61. Truman supported civil rights before JFK

Truman intergrated the military for one. Check this out:

Truman’s background notwithstanding, Gardner shows that it was Harry Truman—not Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, or John F. Kennedy—who energized the modern civil rights movement, a movement that basically had stalled since Abraham Lincoln had freed the slaves. Gardner recounts Truman’s public and private actions regarding black Americans. He analyzes speeches, private conversations with colleagues, the executive orders that shattered federal segregation policies, and the appointments of like-minded civil rights activists to important positions. Among those appointments was the first black federal judge in the continental United States.

http://www.siu.edu/~siupress/titles/s02_titles/gardner_truman.htm

One of Gardner’s essential and provocative points is that the Frederick Moore Vinson Supreme Court—a court significantly shaped by Truman—provided the legal basis for the nationwide integration that Truman could not get through the Congress. Challenging the myth that the civil rights movement began with Brown v. Board of Education under Chief Justice Earl Warren, Gardner contends that the life-altering civil rights rulings by the Vinson Court provided the necessary legal framework for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.



Gardner characterizes Truman’s evolution from a man who grew up in a racist household into a president willing to put his political career at mortal risk by actively supporting the interests of black Americans.

[maha]

66. The Civil Rights Movement

Nothing ever starts in a vaccuum, but most people consider the modern Civil Rights Movement to have started in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Ed.) That's when the movement organized and became a force. Certainly there's been some sort of civil rights movement throughout American history, however.

[no name no slogan]

85. Don't forget

Hubert Humphrey's civil rights speech at the 1948 Democratic Convention. That was the speech that made Strom Thurmond run for president as a Dixiecrat in 1948.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. gop away!...git git...skidaddle

[Rowdyboy]

10. Oh, how easy it is to forget

Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Katherine Graham, Joan Kroc, John Corzine, just to attack several current Democratic candidates for their wealth.

[sventvkg]

50. Oh No I do not forget them...

Some Dems do fight for the less fortunate...but by and large there is something wrong with the fact that most leaders are very far removed from the people they represent socioeconomically..System needs to change.

[maha]

60. When was this not true?

"there is something wrong with the fact that most leaders are very far removed from the people they represent socioeconomically.."

You might be able to argue that it was easier for a real poor guy to work his way up to being president. But this reminds me of the Lincoln presidential campaign (not that I remember it personally). His campaign built up the "log cabin" story and called him the "rail splitter," but at that time he was a very successful lawyer who hadn't split a rail in many years.

[chiburb]

89. Are you SURE you don't remember personally?

You're such an historian I sometimes wonder if you're using Mr. Peabody's "Wayback Machine" to give us your perspectives here and on your blog!

:-)

[Terwilliger]

11. I agree

how many Democrats make $155,000 per year? How many people?

Factually, in most cases, if these Dems were making $155,000 on their own they'd probably be Republicans.

[janekat]

35. Not necessarily - living in Naples - I know plenty of people who

make much more than that and are Democrats. Know of a couple of millionaires here who are Democrats. True - most of ultra wealthy people tend to be rather oblivious - but there are many who are not...

[alcuno]

13. Ultra-rich Democrats were often raised differently.

First of all, I'm not certain what is meant by "ultra-rich." Can you give me a dollar amount? I can't speak for everyone else but if you are speaking of inherited money, as opposed to earned money, many are raised to believe that that money is the property of the parents and not the property of the children.

Second of all, many "ultra-rich" Democrats are raised to believe that they "owe" a service to their community and to the country. They grow up with the requirement that they serve in a variety of ways.

[Atman]

25. I hate to say something positive about him...

>>Second of all, many "ultra-rich" Democrats are raised to believe that they "owe" a service to their community and to the country. They grow up with the requirement that they serve in a variety of ways.

---

But Bill Gates, as it turns out, was raised this way. Working hard, the family spent much of its time doing charity work and donating to the less fortunate.

Now that Gates is filthy stinking rich, his wife, Melinda, works practically full time going over grant requests and giving away their money.

It is such a shame this otherwise decent guy got his money bilking people out of their hard-earned cash for a security riddles piece of crap like Windows!

[alcuno]

36. It's true. And you are talking ultra-ultra rich.

When you hear about enormous philanthropic gifts, they are likely to come from Democrats. Ted Turner to the UN and the Gates' to fight AIDS in India and Africa.

Interestingly, Bill Gates Sr. is one of the lead crusaders, along with Warren Buffet, against the repeal of the estate tax. Bill and Melinda Gates have indicated that they will NOT be leaving those many billions to their child (I think they only have one.)

[SahaleArm]

73. Weep if you wish.

Somehow I have no pity for wealthy Republicans like McNealy (Sun) or Barksdale (Netscape).

[JohnKleeb]

17. My candiate isnt rich

and grew up in a working class environment and still lives pretty humbly and he never forgets those days.

[Terwilliger]

22. your candidate is the ONLY one who can say that

and he did it by choice

[JohnKleeb]

26. did what by choice?

Oh where he lives. Yea he had it tough growing up but still he doesnt forget, we shouldnt forget our experiences.

[Terwilliger]

37. he limits his salary by choice

and I applaud him for it

[JohnKleeb]

57. I had no idea Terwill

[Jacobin]

18. Want examples?

FDR comes to mind.

I don't hold Kerry's having married well against him. I hold his Iraq voting record against him.

[onehandle]

20. Yeah....

A Homeless President in 2004!

Ha, ha.

Democrats have imagination, no matter their social status. Republicans are single minded, selfish bastards.

[MGKrebs]

21. I'm curious as to where you are going with this?

Dems should only allow poor people to lead us? Or is there a cutoff somewhere in the middle class? What number would you like?

Would you say that, given the choice, it is always better to choose the less- wealthy of available candidates?

[quaker bill]

27. Why do you choose to indulge in prejudice and stereotyping?

Why not simply make your judgements on the person's merits, proposals, and policies?

It is a more honest approach.

It has the added benefit of not casting off good people without cause.

[dsc]

28. So then we should have no gay, black, hispanic

or anyother minority representing districts which don't have majorities of those minorities. That is the exact same thing. There have been plenty of good rich politicians. All of FDR, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, John Corozine, Teddy Kennedy, just to name some, have been excellent politicians whose progressive records have stood the test of time.

You also have some damn bad poor Presidents. Nixon, Reagan, Ike, and several utter mediocrities in the 19th century were poor growing up and poor Presidents.

[maha]

54. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, but

in those days Republicans were liberals and the Dems were knuckle-draggers.

Nobody did more to save ordinary people from the robber barons than Teddy. And he was effective because <i>he knew their games better than they did</i>.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. That's not true actually.

Mark Hanna was NOT a democrat. The Republicans were the party of business and wealth even then. The thing that HAD Roosevelt lash out was his frustration at the manner in which he and congress were manipulated by Wall Street firms still in business today on the Panama Canal deal.

Nobel took him to task for it as well which resulted in a rather famous defamation lawsuit.

Roosevelt didn't form the Bullmoose party for any reason other than a lack of willingness on his own party's part to reform.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[janekat]

31. You almost have to be pretty well-off in order to run for Congress

I know a few pretty wealthy people who are quite compassionate as far as the needs of the poor and the working class goes. Some are more compassionate than many middle-class or poor people. Not all wealthy people are oblivious to others needs.

Why do a lot of people get on other's cases for being well-off? If they try to help others and aren't "selfish bastards" about it - then what's the big deal? There's many ultra-wealthy people who are very philanthropic. There's even been a few who have given away almost all of their money.

Do you blame Patty Hearst for being "wealthy" - for an accident of birth? It's just as bad as blaming someone for being born "poor."

Look at how Bill Gate's father and all those millionaires came out against the cutting of the estate tax.

John Kerry and many of the Kennedy's seem to be genuinely caring people.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. then why don't they support a working class candidate?

I swear if I hear "but there are plenty of nice rich people" one more time...

So if they are so good hearted, and only want what's best for regular Americans, why don't they contribute their money to a middle class candidate? Why the need to step in themselves and "lead" the lower classes?

I don't blame Patty Hearst for being wealthy, but I sure as hell wouldn't vote for her.

"John Kerry and many of the Kennedy's seem to be genuinely caring people."

To you maybe.

btw, philanthropy isn't done for altruistic reasons either.

[janekat]

39. So automatically - anyone who is wealthy should be disqualified

from politics. If they gave away all of their money would they be ok then?

You are a "reverse" snob.

<<<<philanthropy isn't done for altruistic reasons either>>>

Why is is done then?

I suppose you're going to come up with some reason why even philanthropists are evil.

snob snob snob snob....

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

40. no, but why should I assume they are doing it out of the goodness

of their heart? I'm supposed to believe that some wealthy aristocrat is just a nice guy, so he takes on the "burden" of running for office, uses his wealth and family connections and corporate backers to win, and because he's supposedly a liberal, he represents me?

If they are so altruistic, why the need for high positions and personal glory? If I am a wealthy white man, and I'm so liberal I'm concerned for black people, what, do I run for office in a black district? Perhaps I'd be doing better if I supported a black person? Maybe, I dunno.

My opinion? They aren't representing me.

That makes me a snob? I'm fine with that.

[maha]

63. Snob isn't the word

Self-destructive, maybe. Some of the more corrupt administrations have been headed by "working class" presidents. The president most famous for taking down the tycoons and robber barons and "malefactors of great wealth" was Teddy Roosevelt. Go figure.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

64. The Roosevelts are the exceptions that prove the rule

Some of the more corrupt administrations have been headed by aristocratic presidents.

Let's be honest about the Roosevelts though, they were protecting the wealthy from what the poor was about to do to them. There was an open shooting war between workers and the rich on and off from before Teddy to FDR. FDR himself said he wanted to reform capitalism to preserve it.

Nevertheless, you won't hear my complain about TR or FDR, but again, they weren't representing us, they were negotiating with us and gave us a fair deal.

Self-destructive? I'm being self-destructive by promoting working class candidates for public office, as opposed to falling in line behind a member of the aristocracy? Maha, that's rich :)

[Classical_Liberal]

71. Ok well let's nominate Karl Rove

He was born poor. Father left on Christmas day. He is real sympathetic to the poor too. Yes, you are being self destructive, because the only way that we will get a working class person who doesn't have a repuke agenda is by some sort of reform, particulary in the media and campaign finance, and I don't see any viable candidate doing that other than wealth born Dean. Dean maynot have been born in a shotgun shack but he certainly undermines the agenda of the corporatocracy by being sucessful at raising money without using the dlc model.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

80. why would you want to nominate Rove, are you a Republican?

I've noticed something about DU. Bring up a class issues, and you're immediately swarmed with strawmen. Did I say that being working class was the only requirment to run for office? Of course not, but you're suggesting Republicans.

Oh, you're a Deanie, that's why. Yeah, grassroots power, nominating a wealthy conservative aristocrat, who's been an establishment player for years. Wow, good job folks. Cato will be proud. Since Dean supports DLC policies 100%, no harm done.

Why do we need reform to get a president from a working class background? Did you forget about Bill Clinton? Truman and LBJ?

[Classical_Liberal]

84. Dean doesn't support the DLC 100%`

He was against the war. He is also not running by using corporate money. That does more to undermine the dlc than anything. I don't think Clinton was very good to the working class, and he wasn't kind to the poor either. LBJ was pre-sunpack. We need reform, if we want a President that actually represents the poor and working poor and isn't just from the poor and the working poor.

[no name no slogan]

88. Dean has taken corporate money

He's taken $45k from AOL. He took close to $200k from utility concerns in VT to get his campaign off the ground. His "anti-war" stance is notoriously sketchy-- first he's in favor of a sixty-day waiting period to get the UN on board or go in unilaterally, then he's against it. Once troops are on the ground, he's for it. Once we've "won", he's against it again.

Dean was the posterboy for the DLC until Trippi told him to go "anti-war" to distinguish himself from the rest of the pack. The only difference between Dean and the DLC is the people in the leadership roles-- the politics and the agenda won't change one bit. We'll still have one right-wing party masquerading as centrists, and the Republican party.

[Classical_Liberal]

96. He isn't taking it in this campaign

and if he wins that will kill the Washington establishmnet. It proves a campaign can win without it, and that will free dems to be dems. If he wins it will change things quite a bit. I don't have a problem with letting the UN takeover after 60 days, and don't think that makes him a supporter of the war. That line of reasoning only works with right wing war opponants.

[indigo32]

97. It's funny really

it was never his anti-war stance that got me on board... that was only icing on the cake. He's got 10 times the cojones than most the people in the DLC could ever dream of having. He's practical. I support him.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. I don't know but Franklin Roosevelt didn't do too bad

[Loyal]

41. JFK and FDR

Two wealthy presidents, who have done more for working people then you ever have, sventvkg. :mad:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

42. what did JFK do for the working class?

I'll concede FDR easily, no complaints here. But what did JFK do except for cut taxes for the rich and escalate Vietnam? If he hadn't been killed, he wouldn't be considered a liberal hero. Most overrated Democrat Ever.

[Loyal]

43. CIVIL RIGHTS?

LBJ pushed the act through to honor JFK. If you think that didn't help working families then whatever. He started the Peace Corps and the space program, too.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

45. Truman and LBJ did more than JFK ever did

That's telling too. I don't think LBJ's support of civil rights had anything to do with Kennedy. Kennedy was a drug addicted war mongering trust funder. Socially he was great, economically he was horrible for the most part. Better than a Republican certainly.

[dsc]

46. He was murdered or did you forget that

While I do think LBJ's political skills made the difference here JFK was every bit as committed. Oh and BTW if you include as filthy rich people who made money then LBJ counts too.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

47. Getting murdered is not a liberal accomplishment.

LBJ grew up dirt poor, and earned his money during his life, unlike JFK.

[sal]

90. I agree that working class LBJ, Harry Truman, and

William Jefferson Clinton were best for working people of all the 20th Century Democratic presidents; the rest being patrician (and I would include Jimmy Carter, who was rich by rural American standards of the times).

[Classical_Liberal]

72. The tax cut was on the middle class

not the rich.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

107. he cut the TOP rate, not the rate of the middle class

That's not a middle class tax cut, that's a cut for the wealthiest Americans, like JFK's family and friends.

[sventvkg]

55. WTF, Strong Bad???????? Personal Attack was not called for..

Why can't we have a healthy debate on the system that leads to certain people being able to be in a position to be an elected representative and certain people not being able to? I'm saying the system is a bit messed up.....I do not need a personal attack about what I have done compared to JFK and FDR...that was absurd and uncalled for and not appreciated...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. A better question is how can ultra rich Repubs do it...Dems have at least

demonstrated the will. Poverty levels went DOWN during Clinton's presidency.

[durutti]

48. They Can't

One more reason we need a progressive third party.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

53. third parties don't work, we need to take over the Democrats

Progressive populists need to take over the Democratic party, not spin wheels in a third party that can't win.

[Classical_Liberal]

87. What progressive populist are you promoting?

? Since you think Clinton qualifies as a friend of the working class your standard is not mine.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

105. please stop putting words in my mouth

I never said Clinton was a friend to the working class, I said he came from a working class background. Compared to many Democrats, Clinton was alright.

Progressive populists? Anyone in the Progressive Caucus, most of the Congressional Black Caucus, DSA I guess, etc.

[maha]

56. Sounds grand. Won't happen.

For some reason, the political landscape in the U.S. can't deal with more than two major parties, and that's always been true. People have been trying to get a major third party going for two centuries. Even when the Whigs broke up into many little bits, it took less than a decade before the new major party emerged.

[dreissig]

62. Rich Progressives

Rich progressives can get out if they want. Sal, si puedes

[eleny]

65. I"m an equal opportunity voter...

who doesn't discriminate against wealthy Dems!

[JVS]

67. Who can question if the Czar loves his people, or if our ruling class...

loves us? It would be unpatriotic!

[MrPrax]

68. Your right...political dilettantism

and it happens on both political spectrums and not that far up the feeding chain...
Essentially political contests for some elites are little more than a 'display' of their principles, ideological and moral positions...

Makes them feel good and since they are economically immuned to whatever party might win, they have the luxury of promoting extremist platforms or single issues...being realistic has never been fashionable among elites.

Go slow!!!

[dreissig]

94. Jon Corzine

Jon Corzine is not a dilettante. He's quietly becoming a very influential Democrat. And he's richer than God.

[Zorra]

69. Maybe they talked with the butler sometimes

when they were growing up? Or the maid? Or the cook? Or the gardeners?

Anyway, I hear what you are saying, and have asked this question also. I guess wealthy Dems are better than no Dems.

I have had some experiences with some extremely wealthy "old money" people (yes, they were all republicans, although I don't think a few of the younger ones wanted to be). If these wealthy folks were representative of their class in general, I would say that, judging from our conversations and interaction, that they have absolutely less than zero clue as to what it is like to be a member of the working or middle class. Actually, they were very formally polite, but unintentionally "cold", like they were never allowed to really cut loose, and it seemed to me like they were missing out on something in a way, and I think they knew it. I can't accurately describe the impression. Vacant is the best word I can come up with. Not vacant in intelligence or education, but in "soul", as in real life experience substance. I don't think they ever experienced any real threats or danger to their existence. I think they envied me, in a way. I did not envy them at all.

[mandyky]

77. All depends on what one means by ultra rich

I'll speak for Dean - I read he is worth 8 million - not really ultra rich (unless one is poor). He and his wife are both physicians, so I am sure they are in touch with their working class patients. They also sent both of their children to public school, and HD attended and coached his son's hockey team.

The Deans live frugally and at the beginning of his campaign they did not even get cable TV at their home. Apparently they read a lot instead of watch TV.

On one interview, he was asked how much a gallon of milk was and he knew.

I think Dean and the way he has campaigned has also allowed him insight into what people are thinking and feeling these days.

While Dean comes from Wall Street and generational money, his dad also flew missions to Africa and Asia, to help the government. I think HD chose to live differently than he'd been raised, when he moved to VT, and left NYC and Wall Street behind.

[Lexingtonian]

79. 'cause working class people do such a bad job of it

Yes, a lot of wealthy people were born into money and they don't "identify" with the lot of the working man. If they did, it would be bizarre too.

That doesn't mean they don't understand it. Many don't bother, but some do rather more than you imagine. OTOH I've very rarely met a working class person who understands how the wealthy see the world or admits that the best of them might have a wider and deeper understanding of the society than they do, and very few working people seem to have the sort of broad enough understandings needed to cope with, let alone lead/manage, large groups of socially heterogeneous (aka diverse) people.

To wealthy people, it's bizarre how working people behave. Why 50% of working people in the U.S. vote against their own best interests and for Republicans seems to them only explicable as irrationality. And they tend to know the dollar numbers below which people are unable to get out of drudgery and servitude and third rate service pretty well- it's not that they don't know where it is, though they are not in a hurry to imagine what it is like. I mean, you in turn don't take the time to figure out the budget problems and time schedules and daily hassles of the homeless in any detail either.

As soon as working people get political power they change- they start behaving sort of like wealthy people, become snobs, and really are greedy. Ask your local Mafia don or Jim Traficant about the phenomenon. They turn from liking their class to hating and exploiting it. In short, they become Republicans.

We live in politically curious times. Corporate interests have used the extreme divisiveness in society about race to play one side against the other for fifty years, and they've come out the winners. Democratic politicians have to live in a political reality in which presently corporations and conservatives wield about 60%-70% of the economic power in the country as it bears into the political arena. And only in the past five years have social conservatives lost their majority- there is a slight social liberal majority.

You and your friends don't have to deal with that macroscopic power balance. But you simplistically blame Democratic politicians for not fighting battles that can't, if one really understands the situation, be won at present. You give no credit for the harder work of paving the way for such things- you want the payoffs now.

The wealthier classes are raised to understand the way power and wealth are distributed, and they are far less impressed with corporations than you imagine. Corporations, as they see it, are ultimately run by people of the kind they know from childhood, but as organizations are full of the sort of sellout kids of working people who understand only the exploitation part of the enterprises. And that is why the wealthiest are often Democrats- they're not deluded about the shortfalls and humanity of their own kind, but they don't see the exploiteering sorts as the people who ought to be running things.

I write this as a person who grew up middle class but got schooled in the select school of the social elites in a major European city, then in private and public schools in American suburbia, and Ivy tier colleges after that. I've lived among the Town & Country set, most of my friends are upper middle class, as a young child I grew up in a blue collar/white collar suburb, in college I spent a lot of time working in fixing up housing and food distribution in ghettos.

So it pisses me off whenever I see flagrant, political, classism. Most of what gets complained about on DU is the snobbery problem. Your idea is what is called anti-snobbery: the assertion that wealthy people are fatally afflicted with snobbery, which blinds them of intelligence. Alleging that money, or poverty, causes stupidity and inability is somehow more acceptable than the idea that gender or skin color does...you can see this is a problem.

Why not start with the idea that Democratic politicians are having a lot of problems get majorities to go along with what seem reasonable ideas in fixing the problems of working people. Certain kinds of tariffs, non-profit insurance pools for worker health care, union protections, no offshore corporate basings, corporate and dividend and capital gains taxes commensurate to income taxes...it's all been proposed. But along come 'Harry and Louise' and before you know it, working people's ignorance gets abused and the idea that there isn't the money to make health care more efficient becomes the conventional 'wisdom'.

And I'm not done on the subject, but it's enough for one post now.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

81. thanks for a good example of classism

Really, very good job. Your post is an example of exactly why I don't want more wealthy aristocrats in office. Your attitude that working class people just can't understand power and wealth, and your implication that they have no morals (they act like Republicans when they get power) - this reminds me of the "white trash" accusations against Bill Clinton and the silly stories of them stealing furniture - those hillbillies just couldn't understand the aura and depth of the white house.

"I write this as a person who grew up middle class but got schooled in the select school of the social elites in a major European city, then in private and public schools in American suburbia, and Ivy tier colleges after that."

That explains it then. Your training as a waterboy for the rich is paying off well, I'm sure. You certainly seemed to have internalized their values. I wouldn't vote for you.

[no name no slogan]

92. We're the "rich mans burden"

I agree completely. Yes, those woeful "poor" who are to damn clueless to think for themselves. They need some moneyed "enlightened" rich people to lead them to Paradise, because we all know that poor working people are too damn clueless to put two and two together.

It is PRECISELY as you have been saying: the paternal "rich" crowd has ABSOLUTELY no fucking clue what it's like to grow up poor. Sure, they can do "charity" work to "help out those less fortunate", but do you think they'd ever try to CHANGE THE SYSTEM THAT MAKES PEOPLE POOR IN THE FIRST PLACE? HELL NO!

I forgot who said it originally, but I believe it was a Catholic priest in South America:

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor don't have food, they call me a communist."

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

106. good point, paternalism

It's similar to Leninism - he thought the working class didn't have enough "revolutionary consciousness" so they had to be led by the "vaguard" - which always seemed to be the children of the wealthy steeped in Marxism at college - sound familiar?

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor don't have food, they call me a communist."

Great quote, it's Archbishop Romero I think?

[John_H]

82. How can "workers" not

Judging from some posts around here I get the sense that many of DU's "working class" are college students who grew up in firmly upper middle class homes in the suburbs who, upon graduation, will leave their temporary stay in the working class behind for good.

Why do i say that? Because the real working class, which I grew up a part of, doesn't give a shit about the pap the original poster worries about. They're too busy working. They care about getting out. And if gazillionaires like FDR and LBJ and Kennedy help them, they're grateful.

I'd bet they'd hate to have their status invoked by someone pretending
to be one of them but who is actually as rich as midas--like fidelity ralph.

[indigo32]

98. he he

:)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

101. those are the ones saying "class doesn't matter"

as far as I can tell. The upper middle class college kids seem to be libertarians whose main politicial issue is legalizing pot. Sure there are a few college commies left, but most of them have turned libertarian now.

Besides, I'm not ready to say middle class people aren't working class - they still make their living from wages, and most of them aren't more than a paycheck or two away from being poor. It's the aristocrats and their cronies in the upper middle class that are the problem.

"Because the real working class, which I grew up a part of, doesn't give a shit about the pap the original poster worries about. They're too busy working. They care about getting out. And if gazillionaires like FDR and LBJ and Kennedy help them, they're grateful."

Sort of. Most working class people don't see much difference between a rich liberal and a rich conservative, true. They pretty much expect politicians to be rich and crooked, for obvious reasons. FDR was in a class by himself, but since then the presidents from a working class background are the ones that have done the most for us. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[w4rma]

83. That is a worthless litmus test that some idiots use to divide

the left to keep the left from gaining power and enacting reforms.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

104. some idiots think it's not a problem

Some idiots seem to think that wealthy aristocrats can "represent" working class people as long as they mouth the correct platitudes. Some idiots think that all we need is some nice rich person to be president to lead us to the glorious future.

If rich people want to help they should follow, not lead.

[blm]

86. If their CORE principles are truly Democratic, it's easy for them

to represent the working class.

If their CORE values are Libertarian and TOO business friendly, then their populist rhetoric is just empty, hot air meant to deceive Democrats.

[chiburb]

91. Great example here in Illinois...

One of the Dem candidates for US Senate is Blair Hull. Multi-millionair, financing his own campaign (up to $40,000,000). He takes great pride in having workedat numerous blue collar, union jobs as a young man, including working the line in Cannery Row. Still carries a union card today...
Can he represent the "working class" here? Of course...

[mrgorth]

93. Here's my thoughts

Yes and no. Being born rich is not necessarily someone's fault. Opulence is. Thus, I have no issue with someone being born into wealth. I have issues with these people not using their wealth to help others. Barbara Streisand is very wealthy and, I suppose, a philanthropist. Great, she still has lamps that cost 10s of thousands of dollars. That's ludicrous. Most of these types just have no basis in reality anymore. Not sure if I made my point.

[Q]

99. Bush* has more millionaires in his cabinet than any other in history...

...which leads to this question: why are you concerned about 'rich Democrats' when the party in power transparently caters to the rich with tax cuts and legislation?

- Your priorities are screwed.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

103. simple really

Why preach to the choir? This is DemocraticUnderground, not BipartisanChat. No one here needs reminding that the Republicans are the party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

But plenty seem to forget that the Democrats don't always have our interests at heart either. When I talk to non-Democrats who may not understand about the GOP, that's what I'll address. But not here, and not before the primary. There's still a very good chance we'll get to nominate one of the working class candidates. After the primary, priorities can change.

[amazona]

110. clinton wasn't rich and look how hard they made it for him

You have to start from where you're standing. If we only start with candidates who have zero money, zero influence, no family background, no circle of influential friends...then we haven't got a chance if only the very tippy top few who become Rhodes Scholars are allowed to represent us. The GOP already has a huge head start because of their wealth. Should we handicap ourselves even more? There are many decent rich people who could have just as easily spent their lives as Paris Hilton. Who needs the grief of public life. If some ultra-wealthy folks want to help us out, let them.


we should be including not excluding good people