GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/04/16/has-class-warfare-rhetoric-ever-won-an-election/trackback/

  1. To say that you must be “embedded” in a particular circumstance in order to “understand” and “connect” with those in a circumstance is faulty logic.

    If Obama is black, how can he “understand” and “connect” with white people?
    If Mrs. Obama is not a single mom, how can she “understand” and “connect” with single mom’s?

    Does this mean that because Obama has never worked in the private sector, he is unfit to make economic policy? If the left agrees to that, I will agree with their assessment of Mrs. Romney.

    Does the left really think people are so stupid they can’t read, study and connect with people in a different set of circumstances? Their contempt for Americans knows no bounds.

    Comment by TnnsNE1 — April 16, 2012 @ 9:49 am - April 16, 2012

  2. Has class warfare rhetoric ever won an (American) election?

    Have Americans ever been less self-reliant than they are today?

    Comment by gs — April 16, 2012 @ 10:46 am - April 16, 2012

  3. Roosevelt 1936.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 16, 2012 @ 10:48 am - April 16, 2012

  4. Good point, ILC, in 1936, FDR who inherited his millions, used class warfare as a tactic against a self-made millionaire.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 16, 2012 @ 10:54 am - April 16, 2012

  5. At perhaps the darkest moment in American economic history, during the Great Depression, Americans elected and embraced a man far more akin to the fictional tycoon than Mr. Romney. FDR lived on a spacious estate on the Hudson, having inherited rather than earned his wealth.

    But FDR posed as being for the little guy (or whatever the phrase was, back then).

    That’s the cruel joke. America has a semi-hereditary aristocracy. They’re ensconced in Big Government, Big Banking, academia, media and Big Labor. They want to run things. Though Republicans are far from being free of them, their more natural party is the Democrat party – which, since FDR, is the party of maximum government.

    As American elections are decided by vote-counting, they have learned to buy votes by throwing around government largesse and reducing people to dependency on government (which all nations’ aristocracies want to do anyway). And by propagating myths: for example, the myth that Big Government helps the little guy (when actually it steals from her, if she works, and grinds her down), the myth that FDR and Johnson’s Great Society somehow stood for the little guy, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 16, 2012 @ 10:58 am - April 16, 2012

  6. Funny that the Dhimmicrats nominated John F-ing Kerry in 2004 (you know, he served in Vietnam), who was not only wealthy but married into money as well, and not one person on that side of the aisle had any problem with it.

    Now, 8 years later, it’s a campaign issue.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 16, 2012 @ 11:45 am - April 16, 2012

  7. If “class warfare rhetoric” includes rhetorically accusing one’s opponent of waging class warfare, it’s won plenty of elections for the Republicans.

    See: both Tea Party candidates & right-wing pundits constantly accusing Obama of waging a crypto-Marxist class war in order to energize the then-convalescent GOP prior to the 2010 midterms even while Obama continued to cut taxes & maintain massive subsidies for already-bloated industries like oil & agribusiness.

    Said rhetoric is an old political meme that continues to be used to this day, because it works, regardless of the real context of top-down class warfare (Congressional budget cuts always hit the poor first & hardest, while extreme poverty is now effectively criminalized in America) – everywhere from rap videos to reality TV shows to movies, the glorification of epic fortunes (whether made or inherited) is alive & well, even as the percentage of American children living in poverty steadily rises.

    The propensity of America’s poor “low-information voters” to steadfastly defend the Power Elite, in the apparently sincere belief that they’ll retire rich right after they win the lottery (or are perhaps miraculously catapulted into the nouveau riche by an eccentric rich relative), is a testimonial to the cosmic scale of human naivete.

    Comment by jim — April 16, 2012 @ 1:31 pm - April 16, 2012

  8. Congressional budget cuts always hit the poor first & hardest

    What congressional budget cuts?

    While extreme poverty is now effectively criminalized in America

    “Effectively criminalized” must be an Orwellian/Progressive term meaning “Heavily subsidized.”

    Comment by V the K — April 16, 2012 @ 1:42 pm - April 16, 2012

  9. “”please tell me elections where class warfare has made a difference in favor of those waging the battle.”

    Here you go, enjoy.

    Now, if you meant to limit things to Presidential elections (And if you did, you really should have said so) that’s a different story. I’m not sure how you’d tease out all the different contributing factors that lead to a Presidential candidate’s election, but FDR and Bill Clinton seem like candidates who used class warfare rhetoric successfully.
    Or, at least, their rhetoric didn’t hurt them enough to cost them the election. It would probably take a lot of hard work to tell which.

    Now, if the question is, “Has there ever been a time when a legitimately lower class presidential candidate has defeated a legitimately upper class candidate by employing class warfare rhetoric?” than I’m sure I have no idea, but that’s different enough from what you actually asked that I don’t care, either.

    Me, I can’t stand this practice of trying to read the tea leaves of a candidate’s past/social class/personality as some sort of guide to what policies they’re going to embrace. Obama’s a constitutional scholar, and he sure doesn’t give a damn about the constitution.

    Comment by Christopher — April 16, 2012 @ 3:18 pm - April 16, 2012

  10. #7: “If ‘class warfare rhetoric’ includes rhetorically accusing one’s opponent of waging class warfare,…”

    It doesn’t. You just want it to.

    #7: “Congressional budget cuts always hit the poor first & hardest…”

    Yeah Jim, not only can we not afford to cut a single red penny from the federal ‘budget’ (if one existed), we MUST continue running $1.5+trillion annual deficits indefinitely because if we don’t (per Obama, Biden and all Dems) there will be more rapes, no funding for local police/fire departments, the “poor” will die in the streets, and WORST OF ALL, these vital government services might come to an end:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/cheers-photos-show-embattled-gsa-official-enjoying-wine-and-soak-in-spa-tub-at-m-hotel-during-pre-conference-meeting/

    #7: “The propensity of America’s poor ‘low-information voters’ to steadfastly defend the Power Elite, in the apparently sincere belief that they’ll retire rich right after they win the lottery (or are perhaps miraculously catapulted into the nouveau riche by an eccentric rich relative), is a testimonial to the cosmic scale of human naivete.”

    Actually, low- and middle-income conservatives believe wealth and prosperity comes from hard work, perseverance and government policies that are not designed to discourage it. It is liberals like YOU that believe prosperity can only come from things like winning the lottery, receiving a large inheritance, AND of course, government largesse. That doesn’t make you ‘cosmically naive.’ It makes you stratospherically ignorant. (Not to mention the unwitting dupe of precisely the class warfare Obama and the Dems are peddling.)

    #8: “What congressional budget cuts?”

    Exactly, V the K. Exactly.

    Comment by Sean A — April 16, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - April 16, 2012

  11. What do you call Obama’s rhetoric about “millionaires and billionaires and corporate jet owners” if not class warfare (at least in a metaphorical sense)? And he is being deliberately disingenuous about the “Buffett rule,” which, despite the fact that it will bring in hardly any revenue, he is still pushing it because he knows it is popular (which just demonstrates how little most people actually pay attention). And then there is OWS and their death threats to rich people. Class warfare is in no short supply on the left, and it is not class warfare to point it out (by the way, what a convenient way to blame the opposition for your own misdeeds).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 16, 2012 @ 3:56 pm - April 16, 2012

  12. Here’s the meme about the so-called “Buffett Rule” that NEEDS TO GO VIRAL: If it were passed tomorow and went into effect immediately, the revenue it would confiscate….er, umm…GENERATE would fund the federal government for 17 hours.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — April 16, 2012 @ 4:03 pm - April 16, 2012

  13. As if every time a Republican candidate blathers about “elites” it isn’t class warfare.

    Sheesh.

    Comment by M. Bouffant — April 16, 2012 @ 5:05 pm - April 16, 2012

  14. What congressional budget cuts?

    Agreed. WHAT cuts? Please, oh please, can we FINALLY start to have a FEW cuts? Even Paul Ryan’s budget plan continues to increase Federal spending year after year after year… and above inflation.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 16, 2012 @ 5:09 pm - April 16, 2012

  15. Let’s start w/ the “defense” budget.

    Comment by M. Bouffant — April 16, 2012 @ 5:12 pm - April 16, 2012

  16. Let’s start w/ the “defense” budget.

    So, you would cut the budget of one of the few things the US Constitution actually allows the federal government to provide, instead of the things that it doesn’t and are also directly responsible for the debt crisis that is to come in the near future (i.e. entitlements)?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 16, 2012 @ 5:51 pm - April 16, 2012

  17. You mean the defense budget that’s been cut by over a trillion dollars since Obama took office at the same time discretionary non-defense spending exploded by 40%. That defense budget? The defense budget that is at the lowest percentage of GDP since the Great Depression, that defense budget? The defense budget that is only 17% of Federal outlays but has been the target of 100% of Administration cuts? That Defense Budget?

    Comment by V the K — April 16, 2012 @ 5:53 pm - April 16, 2012

  18. As if every time a Republican candidate blathers about “elites” it isn’t class warfare.

    Because it isn’t.

    Republicans are criticizing the bad policies of the elites, and warning about the concentration of power among the elites. That is not class warfare.

    Obama and the Obamacrats are saying people who have more than their constituents should be punished and have their wealth taken away from them. That is class warfare.

    I am sorry, we debate things at the graduate seminar level here. If you are still at the elementary talking points level, this will go way over it is.

    Comment by V the K — April 16, 2012 @ 5:56 pm - April 16, 2012

  19. Let’s start w/ the “defense” budget.

    Comment by M. Bouffant — April 16, 2012 @ 5:12 pm – April 16, 2012

    With pleasure.

    Let’s start by axing the gourmet food and liquor that the DOD has to pay for when it’s shuttling Pelosi around.

    Let’s also require Michelle Obama to wait for her husband instead of whistling up separate planes, since the DOD covers that as well.

    And then, let’s require the DNC to reimburse the DOD for the FULL expense of Obama and his surrogates using military jets and flying around to campaign.

    Now watch as suddenly these become “essential” spending. After all, you can’t expect insider-trading multimillionaires like Pelosi and the Obamas to pay their OWN bills, can you? They NEED the government to pay for everything for them!

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 16, 2012 @ 5:56 pm - April 16, 2012

  20. Republicans are criticizing the bad policies of the elites, and warning about the concentration of power among the elites. That is not class warfare.

    Obama and the Obamacrats are saying people who have more than their constituents should be punished and have their wealth taken away from them. That is class warfare.

    When we mention “elites” it’s because of our nuanced understanding of America’s numerous real class differences, and the way that certain small groups disproportionately influence American politics.

    When you mention “elites” it’s because of your mindless and reflexive hate for those who have more than you.

    Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think that argument would fly in most graduate seminars.

    Comment by Christopher — April 16, 2012 @ 6:20 pm - April 16, 2012

  21. Oh, gee, how can I dumb this down enough for Christopher to understand?

    Let’s use marshmallows as an analogy. (An analogy is when grown ups use something simple to represent something complex, so dumb people can understand it better.) In this case, marshmallows represent classes of people.

    If I say, “Marshmallows are white and fluffy, and if you eat too many, you’ll get sick,” I’m just presenting facts about marshmallows.

    If I say, “It’s the marshmallows’ fault your life is unhappy. Vote for me and I will punish those marshmallows and take their things!” That is marshmallow warfare.

    You see, Christopher, just because two people talk about the same thing doesn’t mean they feel the same way about it.

    I know. It’s a complex thought. Maybe if you can’t handle that difficult paradox, you should stick to Kos or ThinkProgress where everything is simple.

    Comment by V the K — April 17, 2012 @ 5:56 am - April 17, 2012

  22. IOW: Conservatives may criticize elites (and well they should, since it was elites that came up with the idea that giving mortgages to people with bad financial management skills was teh awesome), but we don’t actually propose to punish them. Democrat class warfare rhetoric and policy is quite explicit that people who are better off should be punished.

    Comment by V the K — April 17, 2012 @ 7:52 am - April 17, 2012

  23. #20: “When you mention ‘elites’ it’s because of your mindless and reflexive hate for those who have more than you. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think that argument would fly in most graduate seminars.”

    Shorter Christopher: the strawman definition for ‘elites’ that I arrogantly pulled out of my a*s and assigned to you (because well,…I know best) would make you a laughing stock in the world of elite academia.

    Christopher, in addition to being grossly ignorant of the meaning of ‘class warfare,’ you have an embarrassing inability to detect this thing we call IRONY.

    Hmm, let’s see…how can I dumb this down enough for you to understand….

    If you were to say,

    “these are called marshmallows. I know you talk about them a lot and think you know what they are but you actually don’t because you believe they are crunchy and taste like chicken. Well, let me tell you–your quaint, ignorant notion that marshmallows are crunchy and taste like chicken would get you laughed out of the room if you tried to pull that at the next meeting of the International Academy for the Tasting and Enjoyment of Sweet, Fluffy Marshmallows. LAUGHED OUT OF THE ROOM, I SAY! HAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHO!”

    …that would be an example of IRONY. Is any of this sinking in? No? May I second V the K’s recommendation re: DailyKos and/or Think Progress?

    Comment by Sean A — April 17, 2012 @ 9:08 am - April 17, 2012

  24. [Golf claps for Sean A.]

    Comment by V the K — April 17, 2012 @ 11:09 am - April 17, 2012

  25. Conservatives may criticize elites… but we don’t actually propose to punish them.

    Except by restoring fairness to the economy: sound money, free markets, corporate welfare cuts, deregulation and other measures that will separate Business from State… and thus punish those of the elites who can’t make it on their own productive merit.

    And fraud prosecutions. Jon Corzine, for example, should be in jail for the MF Global fraud.

    The key is restoring fairness, i.e. human freedom under the rule of law. Punishment of elite criminals is not the main point, but it does come as a consequence and is a good one.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2012 @ 11:23 am - April 17, 2012

  26. #24: [Right back at V the K.]

    Comment by Sean A — April 17, 2012 @ 12:38 pm - April 17, 2012

  27. [...] Has class warfare rhetoric ever won an (American) election? [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Yes, readers, sometimes my titles don’t work as well as I’d like — April 17, 2012 @ 1:59 pm - April 17, 2012

  28. Hi Christopher,
    You want to use rational argumentation. Be aware that a common practice here is for some commentators to use insults as a means of trying to put you off balance and push you into ineffective modes of communication. Welcome and good luck.

    Hi Dan,
    And the question could be alternatively asked: Has income inequality or worker/middle class-centric rhetoric ever contributed to an (American) election victory? Because, I think that it has… and that can definitely be seen as a form of class warfare under Repub views held today. By using the term class warfare, you stack a deck with a lot of baggage Dan. Check out some reformulated rhetoric here. It is clear that “class warfare” rhetoric is a healthy part of our political discourse; it has just been the case that the term itself, has been appropriated to support a particular (negative) framing…

    Comment by Cas — April 18, 2012 @ 2:12 am - April 18, 2012

  29. Yes, Cas. You indeed use insults as a means of trying to put others off balance and push them into ineffective modes of communication. Unfortunately Christopher also seems to be following in your footsteps with his statements that liberals are always right and that conservatives are always wrong and stupid.

    Glad you finally acknowledged and recognized this. Perhaps you will be ready for intelligent and rational discussion at some point in the future. Clearly you’re not at that stage now.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 18, 2012 @ 12:59 pm - April 18, 2012

  30. And also, it’s entertaining to watch Christopher and Cas carry out their class warfare.

    Christopher and Cas, like the Obama Party that own them, operate on a very simple platform:

    1) You deserve everything you have and then some

    2) No one else deserves anything they have

    3) If something bad happens to you, it is someone else’s fault

    4) If something bad happens to someone else, it is never your fault

    The fundamental logic that underpins their worldview is thus distilled into this very simple statement:

    Whatever I do, think, or say is right — and you, facts, science, and logic are only right if they completely agree/comply with me.

    For example, Cas and its fellow Pomposity are on welfare. Why? Not because they made bad choices. Not because they choose not to work. It is because rich people are stealing from them and businesses are discriminating against them. There is no possible way that their choices or their actions could have in any way contributed to their issues. Their bills are someone else’s problems, and someone else should be giving them money by virtue of what they are; since people aren’t, they need to be compelled to do so by law.

    Once you realize that, you understand Obama’s whole point. Obama sounds insane to a responsible person because responsible people understand the concept of work, earning, and paying their bills. But to the welfare-addicted Obama base that is insistent that society owes them a living and that their problems are other peoples’ fault, Obama offers them both “free” money from his stash and the opportunity to take revenge on all the people they blame for their problems.

    Expecting Cas, Pomposity, and their new friend Christopher to become responsible is impossible as long as Obama keeps handing them candy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 18, 2012 @ 1:07 pm - April 18, 2012

  31. @#28 – The Cas-hole returns……
    If these ‘insults’ (Waaaah! Someone said something mean to me! Waaaah!) throw you off center so easily, then:

    1) You’re waaaaay too sensitive. Toughen up.
    2) You, in fact, don’t possess the skills necessary to engage in ‘rational argumentation’, as you advise Christopher to do.
    3) Your arguments suck, and no amount of rhetorical flim-flammery can mask that painful fact.
    4) Your mask slips again as you ‘speak’ about others ..” trying to put you off balance and push you into ineffective modes of communication.”

    A) Do you take responsibility for ANYTHING that you do that doesn’t work out to your satisfaction?
    Or
    B) Do you ALWAYS blames others for ANYTHING that you do that doesn’t work out to your satisfaction?

    tick….tick…..tick…..tick
    Times up!

    The correct answers are: A) NO
    B) YES
    Sorry, but you flunked the short quiz.
    Better luck next time.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 18, 2012 @ 2:34 pm - April 18, 2012

  32. By using the term class warfare, you stack a deck with a lot of baggage

    LOL – Pot calling the kettle black, anyone?

    a common practice here is for some commentators to use insults as a means of trying to put you off balance

    Upgrade to ROFL :-) What’s the matter, Cas? Outmatched? Not much fun, when other people have the facts and logic and evidence on their side – and then for good measure, they also throw a few standard Left ‘insult’ techniques back at you?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 18, 2012 @ 5:22 pm - April 18, 2012

  33. Laugh? I thought I would croak.

    Christopher at #20 writes this:

    When you mention “elites” it’s because of your mindless and reflexive hate for those who have more than you.

    Is Christopher mistaking someone here of being a run-of-a-mill “occupier” or a welfare critter lining up to get bogus payments from “Obama’s stash” or a garden variety feminist who demands free contraceptives as a right?

    My whole view of personal responsibility, the work ethic and achievement are turned upside-down if I have a “mindless and reflexive hate for those who have more than” I do.

    I suppose Christopher’s only practical experience in life is with the inbreds in Deliverance who see him as prey and jump him in the woods and then cannibalize him and hang his skull on a gate post.

    How anyone could “progress” so far into the swamp of situation ethics and moral relativism to see “non-progressives” as mindless and reflexive haters of those with more is astounding.

    Who does he think we are? Occupiers? Welfare cheats and addicts? Statist scourgers and redistributionists? Sponges, leeches, parasites, grifters, freeloaders, barnacles, moochers?

    This is how the 48% who pay no income taxes see the 52% who are not coughing up enough to satisfy them?

    Stunning.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 18, 2012 @ 6:58 pm - April 18, 2012

  34. Obama 2008. I don’t see how anyone can doubt this.

    Comment by John David Galt — April 18, 2012 @ 9:16 pm - April 18, 2012

  35. it’s because of your mindless and reflexive hate for those who have more than you.

    Actually, it’s my reflexive and thoughtful resentment of those who desire to take my freedom and run my life.

    Elites can do what they like, so long as they leave me alone.

    Comment by V the K — April 18, 2012 @ 10:25 pm - April 18, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.160 Powered by Wordpress