LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
May 26, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     robert scheer     barack obama     gay marriage     ndaa     chris hedges
Most Read

Say 'Hi-Ho!' as They Strip-Search You

TED: 'A Money-Soaked Orgy of Self-Congratulatory Futurism'

A Rare Admission That Money Trumps Everything Else

I Can't Hear Myself Think

Children Slaughtered in Government Attack on Syrian Town

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Why Bain Questions Matter
OSHA Struggles When Tower Climbers Die

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Better Than We Found It
The Good-Natured Dictator

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Reports

The Shadow Class War of 2010

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Oct 10, 2010

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

The 2010 election is turning into a class war. The wealthy and the powerful started it.

This is a strange development. President Barack Obama, after all, has been working overtime to save capitalism. Wall Street is doing just fine and the rich are getting richer again. The financial reform bill passed by Congress was moderate, not radical.

Nonetheless, corporations and affluent individuals are pouring tens of millions of dollars into attack ads aimed almost exclusively at Democrats. One of the biggest political players, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accepts money from foreign sources.

The chamber piously insists that none of the cash from abroad is going into its ad campaigns. But without full disclosure, there’s no way of knowing if that’s true or simply an accounting trick. And the chamber is just one of many groups engaged in an election-year spending spree.

This extraordinary state of affairs was facilitated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s scandalous Citizens United decision, which swept away decades of restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections. The Republicans’ success in blocking legislation that would at least have required the big spenders to disclose the sources of their money means voters have to operate in the dark.

Advertisement

The “logic” behind Citizens United is that third-party spending can’t possibly be corrupting. The five-justice majority declared that “this court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”

You can decide what’s more stunning about this statement, its naivete or its arrogance.

If one side in the debate can overwhelm the political system with clandestine cash, which is what’s now happening, is there any doubt that the side in question will buy itself a lot of influence? If that’s not corruption, what exactly is it? 

And how can five justices, who purport not to be political, sweep aside what elected officials themselves long ago concluded on the subject and claim to know what will or will not “cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy”? Could anything undermine trust in the system more than secret contributions to shadowy groups spending the money on nasty ads? 

The good news is that the class war is bringing a certain clarity to politics. It is also another piece of evidence for the radicalism of the current brand of conservatism. This, in turn, is forcing Democrats to defend a proposition they have been committed to since the days of Franklin Roosevelt but are often too timid to proclaim: that government has a legitimate and necessary role in making economic rules to protect individuals from abuse.

It has thus been both entertaining and educational to watch Republican Senate candidates in Connecticut, West Virginia, Alaska and Kentucky grapple with the impact of their bad-mouthing of minimum-wage laws.

Conservative academics have warred against the minimum wage ever since FDR declared the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 perhaps “the most far-reaching program, the most far-sighted program for the benefit of workers that has ever been adopted here or in any other country.”

These critics have never gained traction because most people think it’s simple justice that those who work for a living be treated with a modicum of respect. Many voters who express skepticism about government in the abstract nonetheless favor laws that give a fighting chance to individuals with weaker bargaining positions in the marketplace.

The minimum-wage battle underscores the difference between 2010-style conservatism and the conservatism of Dwight Eisenhower or even Ronald Reagan. The 2010 right actually imagines a return to the times prior to the New Deal and Teddy Roosevelt’s Square Deal, the heady days before there were laws on wages and hours, environmental concerns and undue economic concentration.
The country doesn’t need this class war, and it is irrational in any case. Practically no one, least of all Obama, is questioning the basics of the market system or proposing anything more than somewhat tighter economic regulations—after the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression—and rather modest tax increases on the wealthy.

But even these steps are apparently too much for those financing all the television ads, which should lead voters to ask themselves: Who is paying for this? What do they really want? And who gave them the right to buy an election?

E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
   
© 2010, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.

In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.

Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.

Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.

Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.

By Obbop, October 14, 2010 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

The elite’s government FEARS you!!!!!!

Their fear is manifested in the laws they pass. Here is a law banning what MANY of the Founders wrote is a RIGHT of citizens when a government no longer represents them:

Section 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, 
o teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any state,territory,district or possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of
any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or
destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, 
circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or
printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty,necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with,any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the
purposes thereof -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this
section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty
years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any
department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms ‘‘organizes’’ and ‘‘organize’‘, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes,
and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.


Corporate America is becoming increasingly more powerful and
influential. Yet, according to the government of for and by the elites YOU,
a citizen, have to accept whatever the government does with NO recourse other than voting…... and there is sufficient proof that shows to me voting is worthless since the entrenched power structure ensures that the emplaced elite class can not be removed.

The Founders specifically wrote of the people’s right to abolish a government when it no longer represents them.

Tyranny is upon is!!!

Report this

By Alan MacDonald, October 13, 2010 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

First and foremost, its not “class-warfare” but “Empire-warfare”!!!

It’s actually an Empire-war against the working-class which uses the old red-baiting term ‘class-warfare’ to make the working-class demand for reasonable economic treatment sound somewhat ‘socialist’, if not downright ‘Commie’.

If we let the bastards pull the Frank Luntz word-lie of calling it ‘class-warfare’, rather than what it truly is; “Empire-warfare”, then they have won the word battle—- just as the bastards did with ‘death-taxes’.

Second, the result of the ‘empire-thinkers’ winning in this guilefully disquised “Empire-warfare” is not merely that the working-class gets soaked——but the real threat is that Empire winning always leads to a country and its people dying.

‘Empire-warfare’ winning and firmly establishing a reign of Empire, rather than democracy, always, as Hannah Arendt warned in the Nazi Empire means that “Empire abroad, entails tyranny at home”.

‘Empire-warfare’, if not successfully confronted by the vast majority of average people who believe in ‘democracy-thinking’, will inexorably lead to the financial, political, and total destruction of any country that allows the cancer of Empire to spread.

This truth is easily seen in what the ruling-elite global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE, which hides behind the facade of its Two-Party Vichy sham of faux democratic government, has already done to the human, educational, financial, industrial, and ecological death-spiral of our once great country.

Third, the real economic oppression of the vast majority of average ‘democracy-thinking’ people in America is already worse than anywhere in the world——except Zimbabwe—- as proven by economist’s ‘gold standard’ of judging income inequality.

The GINI Coefficient of Income Inequality in the global Empire today (which still poses as America) is literally ‘off the charts’ compared with all other real advanced democratic countries. All of Europe and Japan have GINI Coefficents of Income Inequality between 0.23 and 0.34, while the American Vichy Empire has a GINI of 0.49—- almost matching Zimbabwe’s and exceeding the former Soviet Empire (Russia’s) and China’s.

WOW! We can start cheering for our team (actually the Empire’s team, on which we are ‘played’).

“We’re number one! We’re number one! We’re number one—in income inequality!!”

Great chant, mindless fans. Get used to cheering that if we don’t start confronting the ruling-elite global EMPIRE that has us by the balls.

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

Report this

By MC Hammerabi, October 12, 2010 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment

I agree that the rationle used in the SC decision is sophistry and disingenious.  However, I disagree with Mr. Dionne regarding minimum wage laws, which increase unemployment.

Report this

By Mike, October 12, 2010 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yes Obama, like FDR in the 1930s, is moderate and acting to save capitalism but it is not enough for the crowd that is never happy unless it owns everything.  Remember, this is the same crowd that didn’t care about the widespread misery of the Great Depression - only 3 years later in 1932, when there was an election, was there an opportunity to get a Governmnet that would intervene.

That’s why the banks and corporations that were rescued should have been left to bankruptcy, or nationalized if they were too big to fail.

Report this

By gerard, October 12, 2010 at 9:27 am Link to this comment

Obbop: Your ,,, “the pervasive ongoing invasion of the once-sovereign USA by multi-millions of often hostile invaders from the south” indicates a lot of fear and hatred aimed at some huge anonymous “enemy” from Mexico and Central America—in other words, you are using scare tactics like a lot of other misled, mistaken people these days.
  Inspiring fear is a method used by propagandists to take power away from people.  Fear makes people want to either fight or crawl in a hole. Neither response helps to solve problems but only makes them worse.

Report this

By Obbop, October 12, 2010 at 9:00 am Link to this comment

“The 2010 election is turning into a class war. The wealthy and the powerful started it.”

I believe those at the apex of the pyramid-shaped socio-economic hierarchy desire an oligarchy within the USA.

One reason the pervasive ongoing invasion of the once-sovereign USA by multi-millions of often hostile invaders from the south is that many of the countries/cultures/societies to our south are currently oligarchies and the invaders will accept an oligarchy within the USA.

Citizens, expect an increase in the number of working-poor citizenry as We, the People are steadily, in increasing numbers, shoved down into the mire of economic despair.

But, the endless brainwashing from your youngest age requires yo to obey your betters, the master class, and support and defend “the system.”

Obey.

It is your patriotic duty.

You DO support the troops, don’t you?

Are YOU a Commie?

Love it or leave it.

Pinkos if you do not OBEY.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, October 12, 2010 at 6:39 am Link to this comment

The plutocracy have always known about the class war. But the called it something
else, globalism, new world Oder, free trade.

The have used their money to open the borders, break unions, and create laws that
allow them to send their corporations over seas, while getting the tax payee to foot the
bill.

They fought health care reform, and anything that would benefit
Working people. Working them to death, then collecting on dead peasant life insurance
policies.

They certainly exhibit what Marx called class consciousness, something working people
haven’t as yet developed. Thanks to daily diatribes by the plutocratic media.

Class warfare it’s been here all along. I t seems to be ok with the rich when they do it,
but watch what happens when working people start doing it.

It’s well paste time for some outrage.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 12, 2010 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

MINIMUM WAGE AS A PERCENTAGE OF PER CAPITA GDP

Dionne: Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 perhaps “the most far-reaching program, the most far-sighted program for the benefit of workers that has ever been adopted here or in any other country.”.

So, what’s happened since Roosevelt signed that act?

Here below, for comparative purposes, is a list of countries with minimum-wages (from here).

Indicated is a percentage constructed in this manner:
•  The wage is corrected for purchasing-power-parity (meaning making them comparable from country to country based upon what a wage may purchase)
•  It is divided by the per capita GDP generated by the national economy, also comparable across national boundaries.
•  Which gives the percentage as noted in the listing below.

US (36%)
France (69%)
UK (57%)
Netherlands (48%)
Australia (51%)
Canada (44%)


EXPLANATION OF THE PERCENTAGE

The higher the percentage, the more the minimum wage represents a return on the economic value of the economy. Wages are already accounted for in GDP figures. They are represented (as labor factors) in the production of goods/services as measured by the GDP.

The minimum wage as a percentage of the per capita GDP thus shows its weighting as regards the per capita GDP. It is not the representation, however, of the portion of the GDP that is attributed to all minimum-wage jobs in an economy – let’s be careful of that possible misunderstanding. 

CONCLUSION

Fortunately, the minimum-wage (or below) is earned by only 1.73M Americans, or 1.3% of the employed workforce (of 135M). Of these the women to men ratio of those earning the minimum wage (or below) is 2.2. About 2% of the 1.7M workers earn below the minimum wage. (From BLS stats, here.)

The higher the figure, obviously the better ... for the poor slob who earns a minimum wage.

Given the percentage of the workforce that earns the minimum wage (or below), I leave the conclusion, therefore, to the reader, of its relative importance to the total workforce.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 12, 2010 at 4:12 am Link to this comment

BACK TO THE BEGINNING

Dionne: The Republicans’ success in blocking legislation that would at least have required the big spenders to disclose the sources of their money means voters have to operate in the dark.

It’s true that the Robert’s Supremes went ballistic on this decision. Only a three-year old would confuse “freedom of speech” – individuals possess this freedom, not corporations or institutions or animals or buildings or houses …. or any other entity on earth, including penguins.

It is a Human Right and has nothing whatsoever to do with Free Enterprise. In fact, the Reps can’t even get Free Enterprise right (but they do think its vested-interests are on the Right).

Free enterprise, in economic terms, is the ability of any individual or group of individuals (public or private) to access and participate as an agent within a given market towards the Supply of goods/services thus responding to Consumer Demand. There is no government monopoly or that of a monarch – which is necessary to stipulate. Because it was by giving away such monopolistic rights to “favoured friends” that monarchies, by taxing the royal monopolies, were able to obtain funds to maintain their elegant standard of living. 

So, I say again: We started in 1776 a rebellion in America to do away with a foreign monarch (King George III). Here we are, 230 years later, back to the beginning whereby the monarchy has been replaced with a Born-In-the-USA Plutocracy.

Which is admissible of an electorate only when said electors are brainless twits. The sadness of a democracy is that even the stupid have the right to vote – and they do.

Report this

By eir, October 11, 2010 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

“The tragedy is that liberals and secularists, like Obama, are not viewed as competitors by the corporate forces that hold power, but as contaminates that must be eliminated. They have sought to work with forces that will never be placated. They have abandoned the most basic values of the liberal class to play a game that in the end will mean their political and cultural extinction. There will be no swastikas this time but seas of red, white and blue flags, and Christian crosses.”—Chris Hedges

Obama is a useful tool.  FDR went after these bastards balls out.  Obama?  He keeps the left down.  The Obama White House complains and snarls when the left dares to disagree.  When we dare to defend principle.

One pundit just after the election predicted that while Obama came to public power just before the financial crisis, it would be the next leader, during this world meltdown who would be the “transformative leader.”

The question is: will the near future’s transformative leader be a Hitler (favorite of the oligarchy who financed him and who they thought they could control), or an FDR (bitterly hated to this day by these same bastards)?

The oligarchy holds the power now, and we know what kind of leader they will want.

Report this

By gerard, October 11, 2010 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

“That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”
  “Speakers?  Corporations are “speakers?” Corporate money MAY have influence over or access to elected officials ...! Correction: Corporations are NOT speakers, and corporate money absolutely WILL INFLUENCE elected officials.  Who’s kidding whom here?
  “...does not MEAN that those officials are corrupt?”  Maybe not, but what it DOES mean is that the money is an attempt to corrupt them and is likely to be highly successful, as we know from experience. The inevitable result is that those of “the electroate” who are of average intelligence or above will inevitably “lose faith in” this democracy.
  If this kind of reasoning of the SCOTUS is to be believed, any boob can become a Justice.  Outrageous!

Such finagling inevitably gives RISE TO CORRUPTION OR TO THE APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION.  It’s a done deal—until it is revoked.(Please excuse capitalization, but I want to emphasize the lunacy of the defense here.)

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 11, 2010 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment

DavidByron, October 11 at 12:28 pm:

‘Is he suggesting that there wasn’t a class war running before now?  Who can take such a view seriously?’

Dionne is a WaPo writer.  Don’t expect any kind of radical analysis.

Report this

By felicity, October 11, 2010 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

Hammond Eggs - I assume by your comment that you can
answer Mr. Dione’s three questions:  Who is paying for
this?  What do they really want?  And who gave them the
right to buy an election?

We await your answers.

Report this

By Hammond Eggs, October 11, 2010 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

Dear Mr. Dionne: You and the Warshington Post are part of the machinery destroying this nation.  You are part of the cowardly liberal class that Chris Hedges speaks of elsewhere.  Your status will not spare you from the death camps that are on the way.  You, Obama, the Clintons and every other greedy kid glove opportunist who calls him/herself a “liberal” will be swept into the same mass grave. In fact, you will be dispatched first.

Report this
3rd party voter's avatar

By 3rd party voter, October 11, 2010 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

BP & “ethics” (LOL@ 50¢):

(snip)-During the 2008 election cycle, individuals and political action committees associated with BP—a Center for Responsive Politics’ “heavy hitter”—contributed half a million dollars to federal candidates. About 40 percent of these donations went to Democrats. The top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.

BP regularly lobbies on Capitol Hill, as well. In 2009, the company spent a massive $16 million to influence legislation. During the first quarter of 2010, it spent $3.53 million on federal lobbying efforts, ranking it second (behind ConocoPhillips) among all oil and gas industry interests.

Its registered lobbyists include a number of former federal government and high-ranking political campaign officials, including longtime political operative Tony Podesta, former congressional chief of staff Bob Brooks, former congressional legislative director David Pore and vice presidential aide Michael S. Berman, the Center’s research shows.

The oil and gas industry, of which BP is a member, reported $169 million in 2009 lobbying expenditures.

Comparatively, the entire environmental industry spent $22 million on lobbying in 2009—not much more than BP alone spent for the year. The most active member of the environmental industry, the Nature Conservancy, reported $2.2 million in 2009 expenditures. Last year, BP was active lobbying on the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, which allows increased oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, in areas closer to shore than current law allow(snip)MORE

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/01

Report this
DavidByron's avatar

By DavidByron, October 11, 2010 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

Is he suggesting that there wasn’t a class war running before now?  Who can take such a view seriously?

Report this

By felicity, October 11, 2010 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

Let me get this straight.  Perhaps the majority of
voters out here believed that money was corrupting the
political process so the SC, suspecting such was the
case, has made corruption of the political process
legal.

And let’s not forget that the purposes of a government,
why any society has one in the first place, are to
protect us from each other and ourselves and to do for
us what we can’t do for ourselves. The latest ruling by
the Court has abolished all three purposes.

Report this

By tedmurphy41, October 11, 2010 at 7:04 am Link to this comment

It’s just shuffling the chairs to make it look as though change is taking place; it’s a subterfuge to hide the blindingly obvious, which is that it will lead to the old reliable, ‘business as usual’.

Report this

By FiftyGigs, October 11, 2010 at 6:59 am Link to this comment

“... corporations and affluent individuals are pouring tens of millions of dollars into attack ads aimed almost exclusively at Democrats.”

That obvious fact alone proves both parties are NOT the same.


P.S. Here’s some ethics. According to records, over a fifteen year period, during runs for the Senate and for the Presidency, President Obama received 77 thousand dollars in donations from BP’s PAC as part of a total of 880 million he received from all sources, or less than 0.01%. Two years later, a BP drilling rig exploded in the gulf, and President Obama pinched BP for 20 billion to create a fund for gulf residents so they could get immediate restitution instead of having to wait decades for cases to wind through the courts. The bastard!

Report this

By freelyb, October 11, 2010 at 6:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tesla,

If this isn’t relevant, then what is?? Rome is falling…oh, well.

Report this
Rigor's avatar

By Rigor, October 11, 2010 at 4:04 am Link to this comment

Obama was the largest recipient of BP contributions
during his short stint as a senator and out spent
any previous presidential campaign in history to
become president, but that wasn’t a problem then
right? Oh yeah, it was all for this hopey-changy
stuff that promised us peace and brotherhood… what
a crock!
Politicians are all the same you dolts, its always
been about the money. A democrat will accept the
funding of “shadow class” warriors just the same as
a republican, and to cry racist at anyone who
disagrees with you is towing your masters load for
them - get over yourselves and more importantly get
over them, they don’t care & never will.
Vote your conscience, vote your ethics.

Report this
Tesla's avatar

By Tesla, October 11, 2010 at 4:00 am Link to this comment

Good old Dionne, as irrelevant as ever.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 11, 2010 at 2:50 am Link to this comment

“Today I’ve bought something about animation and I’d like to share the good things with you. It’s a great site, the url is…”

I wouldn’t click on a site like that…since it’s totally irrelevant to the thread by EJ Dionne and is a “hook” about animation, it may well be a trojan horse program that will milk your PC of your personal information.  It may be a “legitimate” ad but that’s how the ID thieves work.  If it’s “legit”, it’s still inappropriate.  Let him buy space for ads.

I ask the management to investigate and remove such posts and consider banning the poster.

Report this
Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.