The Perversity of American Political Thinking — a Relevant Paragraph from Andrew Leonard (Writing in Salon)

© 2012 Peter Free

 

14 June 2012

 

 

Yesterday, I wrote that many American voters vote against their own interests based on loyalty to “isms” and “anti-isms” that have nothing to do with Reality — Today, Andrew Leonard’s well-constructed paragraph illustrates the principle

 

Andrew Leonard wrote the following in regard to the Republican Right and Wall Street’s characterization of President Obama as engaging in “class warfare”:

 

Let’s get this straight.

 

Obama continued George W. Bush’s bailout of the financial sector, has failed to prosecute any Wall Street executives for crimes related to the financial crisis, extended Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, passed an extremely mild piece of bank reform legislation and let the banks get away with murder on the housing/foreclosure crisis.

 

But he also said a few mean things about Wall Street fat cats, and he supports, in theory, higher taxes for the rich.

 

CLASS WARFARE!

 

© 2012 Andrew Leonard, Obama’s disappearing liberal donors, Salon (13 June 2012) (paragraph split)

 

 

“So what’s the problem with Wall Street’s point of view, Pete?”

 

The top One Percent has been using its economic clout to buy elections and politicians, who, in turn, hand over supposedly democratic institutions to do the One Percent’s bidding.

 

Given that the economic elite almost always seeks to increase its wealth and power at everyone else’s expense, that (realistically seen) constitutes the essence of “class warfare” — just as much as seeking to more fairly equalize the social balance does.

 

 

A more insightful question gets hopelessly lost in ideological (idiot-illogical) shouting

 

Lost in class warfare’s inane tempest is a much better question:

 

What is a democratic society’s fundamental purpose?

 

Was the American Experiment founded in order to benefit a very few at the expense of a very many?  Are we happy today with an oligarchically controlled plutocracy?

 

Rather than discuss first principles, the One Percent manipulates the Ninety-Nine into thinking that there is something wrong in objecting to the increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an extraordinarily few.

 

The One Percent’s placating theme is, “Look at us, and strive to be the same.”

 

This cleverly leaves out the part that it is statistically impossible for the Ninety-Nine to become the One.

 

It is not “socialism” to recognize that wealth creates economic and political momentum.  Or that established wealth’s pie-stealing clout is not characteristically and exclusively tied to ability, hard work, or moral deservingness.

 

We need only look around us to recognize that economic anonymity claims a great many people who have equal (or more) talent, work ethic, work investment, originality, and skill as those who are economically much better blessed.

 

Most of us know that this is true.  Especially the One Percent.  That is why it seeks, at almost every turn, to slant institutional tables in its favor.  Why not cheat, when you already have the upper hand?

 

 

The moral? — Voters’ political and economic perspectives are easily manipulated

 

It takes determined awareness to recognize the deceit-filled mind-games that regular play us.