I just read the umpteenth article by a pundit who is telling the world that the Democrats have a new and potent political issue with income inequality. The truth is that I find the articles astounding. They are historically ignorant and so selective in their content as to be misleading. Can it really be that so many of the supposedly knowledgeable insiders have such distorted views of reality? Let's examine the main premises of these articles to find out.
Let's start with the pundits' principal point: president Obama and the Democrats are going to emphasize increasing income inequality as their main issue in 2014; it will be extremely strong particularly with women and minorities, so that the Democrats will win the 2014 elections. Do these folks really believe that? Don't they remember John Edwards and his "two Americas" campaign theme. Edwards' focus was on the wealthy America that was getting richer and the poor America that was struggling. Today, most people think Edwards lost because he was a lying scum who cheated on his wife during the campaign with his "videographer" even though Mrs. Edwards was suffering from cancer at the time. The problem, of course, is that Edwards' affair was disclosed only in the National Enquirer. The mainstream media would not even mention the mess until long after Edwards had withdrawn from the race. Edwards lost because his message did not resonate even among Democrats. And how about John Kerry? Remember his campaign which went on and on about how all those jobs being created by the Bush administration were just positions for "hamburger flippers" at the local fast food joint? According to Kerry, Bush favored the wealthy and did nothing for the poor; you know, the rich were getting richer while the poor were suffering. Then there were all those attacks on Republicans for decades because they wanted "tax cuts for the wealthy". Again, this is an income inequality attack which did not work.
The truth is that Democrats have focused on income inequality since roughly 1932. Sure, there have been some years when they spoke about it more and some when the talk died down, but it has been a staple of Democrat rhetoric for nearly a century. Except for the first 15 years, however, the theme has failed to move enough of the American electorate to give the Democrats a victory.
Then, of course, there are the omissions in the pundits' argument. It is not enough to talk about income inequality. There has to be a proposed solution to that problem. The Democrats have no plan. Even worse for the Democrats, they also have a record. Obama has been president for five years. During the first two of those years, he got anything he wanted since the Democrats had lopsided majorities in Congress. During the next three years, the Republicans controlled the House, but they were not able to roll back any of the Obama programs put into effect during those first two years. And now for the reality: during the last five years, the median household income in the USA declined. At the same time, the income of the wealthiest Americans has grown at a decent pace. Five years of Obama's Democrat policies have made the gap between rich and poor much larger than the one he inherited. So we have Obama and the Democrats operating with policies that have increased the income inequality in the country and, moving forward, their only proposal seems to be more of the same.
Americans may no pay much attention to political debate most of the time. This issue, however, is not a complicated one. Here is a one sentence summary: "Democrats complain about income inequality, but their programs have made it worse." In short, the Democrats are the cause of the very result about which they complain.
It may be time for these pundits to reconsider. This issue is not going to be a big winner.
Let's start with the pundits' principal point: president Obama and the Democrats are going to emphasize increasing income inequality as their main issue in 2014; it will be extremely strong particularly with women and minorities, so that the Democrats will win the 2014 elections. Do these folks really believe that? Don't they remember John Edwards and his "two Americas" campaign theme. Edwards' focus was on the wealthy America that was getting richer and the poor America that was struggling. Today, most people think Edwards lost because he was a lying scum who cheated on his wife during the campaign with his "videographer" even though Mrs. Edwards was suffering from cancer at the time. The problem, of course, is that Edwards' affair was disclosed only in the National Enquirer. The mainstream media would not even mention the mess until long after Edwards had withdrawn from the race. Edwards lost because his message did not resonate even among Democrats. And how about John Kerry? Remember his campaign which went on and on about how all those jobs being created by the Bush administration were just positions for "hamburger flippers" at the local fast food joint? According to Kerry, Bush favored the wealthy and did nothing for the poor; you know, the rich were getting richer while the poor were suffering. Then there were all those attacks on Republicans for decades because they wanted "tax cuts for the wealthy". Again, this is an income inequality attack which did not work.
The truth is that Democrats have focused on income inequality since roughly 1932. Sure, there have been some years when they spoke about it more and some when the talk died down, but it has been a staple of Democrat rhetoric for nearly a century. Except for the first 15 years, however, the theme has failed to move enough of the American electorate to give the Democrats a victory.
Then, of course, there are the omissions in the pundits' argument. It is not enough to talk about income inequality. There has to be a proposed solution to that problem. The Democrats have no plan. Even worse for the Democrats, they also have a record. Obama has been president for five years. During the first two of those years, he got anything he wanted since the Democrats had lopsided majorities in Congress. During the next three years, the Republicans controlled the House, but they were not able to roll back any of the Obama programs put into effect during those first two years. And now for the reality: during the last five years, the median household income in the USA declined. At the same time, the income of the wealthiest Americans has grown at a decent pace. Five years of Obama's Democrat policies have made the gap between rich and poor much larger than the one he inherited. So we have Obama and the Democrats operating with policies that have increased the income inequality in the country and, moving forward, their only proposal seems to be more of the same.
Americans may no pay much attention to political debate most of the time. This issue, however, is not a complicated one. Here is a one sentence summary: "Democrats complain about income inequality, but their programs have made it worse." In short, the Democrats are the cause of the very result about which they complain.
It may be time for these pundits to reconsider. This issue is not going to be a big winner.
No comments:
Post a Comment