I happen to catch CNN anchorman Lou Dobbs during an interview promoting his new book about class warfare in America. He offered his perspective on the state of the economic classes in America and made some remarks that mirror my own. He was talking about how the government as a whole created programs that made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Although he said forces unleashed over the past five years (Bush Administration) have accelerated the class war offensive, he remained equal in spreading the blame to both the Republicans and Democrats, which I thought was odd. With that said, I sensed spreading equal blame was his way of appearing non-partisan.
Dobbs mentioned that the middle class is huge, but not necessarily prospering. In fact, he said they are struggling desperately just to meet their everyday bills. He said basically that if you’re not extremely poor and not extremely rich, you are the middle class. Although there may seem to be a huge disparity here, I would guess his definition of the middle-class would encompass those who earn between $14,000/yr through about $125,000/yr depending on your personal responsibilities and dependents.
Like myself, he believes corporate bought politicians put the American working class in direct competition with the cheapest labor in the world, not by accident, but on purpose. He railed against big government, big media and big business.
I was surprised by his comments because the right-wing in general have demonized class warfare as taboo and have nearly outlawed discussion of it in the mainstream media. Even during this short interview, Dobbs was asked if his own employer might come down on him for his remarks.
If you listen carefully to the interview, you'll also hear the interviewer imply that the recent Democratic election victories will spell more trouble for the middle-class. When in fact the opposite should be true.
When asked how he would solve the problem facing middle-class America, his solution is more people must get involved and participate in our democracy and that the public education system is the great equalizer. I only slightly disagree with that statement. Education is a key to prosperity, but the Federal government is the great equalizer that enables everyone to achieve a powerful and successful education.
23 comments:
Dobbs spreading the blame around is not non-partisan. If you have not read Thomas Franks books 'Whatever Happened to Kansas' or 'In Capital We Trust" it is definitely worth a read. In the 90's Democrats abandoned economic populism (2/3 still do) and brought us all the AFTAs. Frank does a good job connecting those neo-liberal economic policies to the cultural politics that followed.
The funny thing is Dobbs is what we might have called a market based conservative twenty years ago. I think he had an important impact on the recent election. Some people are even referring to Dobbsian Democrats. Webb is certainly one I'd put in this camp. CNN's specials on the War on the Middle class were quite on target.
Dobbs has quite a broad definition of middle class. It probably goes from 20,000 to 1,000,000. What Dobbs was most likely hinting at was immigration. While I certainly don't think its as black and white as Dobbs portrays, I do think if the Dems don't deal with it head on there in big trouble in 08.
Maybe the democrats should get a clue before they start making big war plans. Matbe they should first start to have one plan instead of having a whole bunch of plans.
Iraq war or class war plans? I've been meaning to write about the dems war plans. For that matter, what are the Republicans war plans? The plans we are working with now were drawn up by Bush and his neo-con cabinet of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Pearl. Both the dems and Pugs voted for it with few abstainers (Feingold was one). So the plans right now belong to everyone. If the Dems drew up an alternate plan, would it be smart to show it to the world? I think not.
The plans for the dems is to reinstate the draft.
Another moronic comment. One guy brings it up and all of a sudden it's the Dems plan. Get real and wake up man. Everybody and their brother has already said it's not going to happen. Just because one guy says 'reinstate the draft' doesn't mean it's the Dems plan.
What a short memory you have. Wasn't the democrats in 2004 that were saying that Bush was going to reinstate the draft? I think it was John Kerry that said that as he was campaigning. And lone behold it's a democrat that is trying to pass a bill to reinstate it.
John Kerry used the pre-emption policy and gung-ho attitude of Bush as reasons to tell voters during his presidential campaign that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush. Kerry was wrong. He had no idea that Bush would rather run our military ragged before he does that as witnessed by current events. They are now taking 42 year olds. Republicans don't want the draft for same reasons some Dems want it.
A draft would be a disaster. The men and woman in our armed forces are highly trained and are reqired to use advanced equipment and weapons. You can't just take some shmuck off of the street and ask him to use the high tech equipment. John Kerry may think your stupid if your in the military but, most of the equipment they use takes quite a bit of intelligence to operate. Our military is the best in the world and the men and woman who are in it are committed to serving their country and being the best they can be. I have friends in the armerd forces that have served two tours in Afganistan ans Iraq. They are far from being run tagged as you suggest. These guys like what they are doing and are commited to their job. One friend has reinlisted for another four years of service.
Why would a draft be a disaster when the army has lowered educational requirements, HS diploma or GED has been waived temporarily. The draft is not designed to insult anyone's intelligence. It would just supplement the great fighting force we have today with a more accurate representation of all Americans. No wars - No draft.
see above
This isn't the same military as we had when we had a draft. Much more high tech weapons. Not your average joe can work such equipment. Let alone be forced to operate the weapons.
Are you implying that the ivy-league educated kids of rich-rich people can't operate the same weapons that high school educated volunteers can? If the weapons are so difficult to operate, why has the army dropped the HS diploma/GED requirements for recent recruits?
If your forced to do something you don't want to you aren't going to do the same job as someone who wants to be there. Don't try putting words into my mouth and twist around my point.
Then why bring up the skills required to operate weapons? I agree its a mute point. We fought winning and losing wars in the past with conscription, so that is not the issue either.
When the army has to dumb down recruits in order to meet their quota, they don't just put other soldiers in the field in jeopardy, they jeopardize the entire nation. If we have reached that point in such a serious war of the 21st century as Bush says, why would you not want the most brilliant candidates you can get your hands on? It does not make sense if you really want to win.
I have met some very bright people who have never graduated from highschool. I don't think a highschool diploma or a ged makes a person smarter than someone who doesn't have one. The point is that people who want to join the military are dedicated to that job. Just like a person who wants to become a doctor they are deticated to that job. They will do their job to the best of their abilities because they choose that path in life. To put someone in a position that they don't want to be in isn't good for anybody no matter what position. Would you want a guy practicing medicine on you because we had to draft people into the medical field because we were short on doctor's? They probably wouldn't perform as good as someone who dedicates themselves to the job. The same is true in the military.
I agree with you completely on the Diploma/GED qualifications and I would even extend that to people with bachelors and masters degrees. The credentials are no guarantee to competency. But in real life when dealing with complete strangers, unfortunately that is the first thing employers look for. Volunteer armies are great for peace time and small skirmishes, they do a more than adequate job defending our country. But when we have to defend someone elses country in what amount to "long wars", global wars, wars of the century or whatever buzzwords Bush continues to use to describe the seriousness of his decisions, we will need more.
The sad fact is, volunteers who change their minds are considered traitors to the country, maybe those who don't want the draft should be in the same boat. If Bush decided to go with a draft, that is the campaign he will use against his fellow americans.
The big word there is IF. And he hasn't and will not bring back the draft. That draft issue is dead.
The democrats just need to have one common plan. That would be a start for the numskulls.
If Democrats create one common plan, at least it will be a plan. Why do so many people hate their country and not want to serve? Or do they hate Bush and his war?
Democrats are so far lost they can't come up with a plan other than surrender. Hey idiot I'm not sure why you think so many people hate America it just seems the lefties hate America.
Now who's an idiot?
Why is it the lefties so despreatly want us to be defeted? Why is it the democrats always side with the enemy? Why is it several democratic senators (Kerry for one) are going to meet with Iran? Why is it the democrats actually think apeasement will work with terrorists? The democrats have their heads so far up their asses that they can't even govern properly. I think we need to get rid of these carrer politicans in office and have term limits on senators. They get so caught up in politics they actually forget why they were sent to Washington in the first place.
I take it you are for staying the present course. Bush calls diplomacy, appeasement. He has taken the other direction and look where its gotten us. You're right, Kerry should not be going to Iran, Bush and Condi should instead.
Post a Comment