When Politicians Hail From the Upper Classes, the Upper Classes Do Well.

A recent article in Mother Jones starts by asking this question, “Does economic inequality matter that much?”

According to polls the American people seem to think not. So long as there is a reasonable chance to move up the income ladder it would seem that income inequality doesn’t matter.

It is totally different when it comes to “political inequality.” Here the American people are concerned. Between the1960s and 1980s the percentage of Americans who felt that “the government is run by a few big special interests looking out only for themselves” doubled to reach 76 percent.

The American people do not recognize the connection between “income inequality” and “political inequality.” The widening wealth gap between the upper 1 percent the rest of the country is directly correlated to the intensification of political action on behalf of that 1 percent and the political inaction on behalf to the remainder of the citizens.

Political action is taken on reduction of estate taxes; nothing is done on minimum wages, food insecurity, too-high heating bills or health care.

There are two suspected causes for this state, first the number of millionaires who are elected officials and the other the cost of getting elected. The first is understandable, like George Bush asked of Rev. Jim Wallis, “I don’t understand how poor people think.” When you have always been rich or well-off it is hard to understand how you might worry about feeding or housing your children.

Looking at the second cause is also simple; those that have, give and if you give, you get. In the 2000 campaign 95 percent of all campaign contributions came from those making over $100,000 per year. Unless you are Duke Cunningham, most politicians do not take outright bribes. However; you give enough and you can sit across from a politician and tell him or her about your concerns.

The article is very short, but very thought provoking. It ends by asking the question of how long can the republic survive is the government belong only to the rich.


http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/04/inequality_and_democracy.html

the upper class?

Okay, so Clinton snuck into it with education, but still... he is in it.

to find someone not from the upper class.

I take that back. I believe that John Edwards came from a poor background.

either. At least not yet.

office.

You expect the elites to stand up for us?

The New Deal was good for 'regular' people. The Kennedy family fought for civil rights.

It's nearly impossible to become president without wealth. Even someone like Clinton who certainly grew up poor, had a wife who earned a very good living. I also think he would have had a much harder time becoming governor of a wealthier state.

Rich people can have values too. Poor people can be assholes. It's all about how you view the world, and humanity.

they grew up poor. you would think that would have some influence in what they support. of course FDR AND Kennedys are the opposite. grew up with wealth but are dedicated to helping those who didn't grew up the way they did.

with resentment of and envy toward "the rich". While they didn't like them (because the rich didn't include them in their social circles), they also aspired to join them and to keep members of their lower middle class from going with them. I seem to remember that Nixon had a mixed view of having to work his way through school as being both proud and ashamed that he had to do it.

I think that perhaps FDR's struggle with polio could have had something to do with his ability for empathy for regular, everyday people. It's just my opinion but to me it makes sense.

Think you might find a few Hispanics and some Blacks in Congress. Granted they are very few!!!! No Native Americans to date

Colorado Senator until 2004 (?)

did not share W's lack of empathy.
It seems to be a certain type of spoiled, "entitled" rich kid who has this attitude. There are also certain types, Tom DeLay comes to mind, who have come up from not-so-rich backgrounds, who are more than willing to forget from whence they came and step on the necks of those they left behind.

but Delay's greed (stemming from the lack in his past), is biting him in the ass now.

can afford Washington DC...

An aristocratic ruling class makes us go back in time where the peasants rebelled ... a rebellion is very possible here...

Neither grew up rich. Nor did Carter. And if we're talking potential presidents, Wes Clark didn't grow up rich, father died when he was four, mom worked in a bank.

I believe that bushie considers himself "above" Delay.

Both JFK and FDR have been mentioned as being cut from a different cloth than the bushie crime gang.

Cheney is an example of not coming from wealth. I believe he had a scholarship to Yale -- which he blew and had to go to a state college to get his degree. He has a solid voting record of being against the American people.

Except when the rest of the classes decide to chop off their heads, and even then they have a higher survival rate than poor genocide victims.

The difference is whether the upper class person making decisions thinks that he can be "doing well" and have everyone else "do well" at the same time. Bush's philosophy: if we're not suffering, he's not rich enough. Anything we have, if they see it, they want to take it away from us. Other rich people (JFK, Clinton, etc.) have less of a problem with non-rich people living reasonably well.

is very telling...

http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=3518560

"But the new rise in inequality does not seem to have come with a commensurate rise in mobility. There may even have been a fall."

Thank you for the article.

thank you