Is anyone else bothered by sons of privilege becoming president?

[AP]

Does anyone else wish that the president of the united states were more of a symbol of the idea that with hard work, a level playing field and equality of opportunity, you can rise to the top, and then create a world in which others can do the same?

[pmbryant]

1. Not if their politics are progressive

Why push a candidate just to further that myth of a "level playing field"? Enough people believe that crap as it is. We need to make the playing field more level, not pretend that it already is.

--Peter

[AP]

5. I have no idea what your point is.

Don't people wish the president could be a symbol of the idea that if you work hard, your labor will be fairly rewarded and that anyone can succeed? Isn't that a good thing for Americans to see?

[pmbryant]

14. Pretty simple, really

I thought this was part of the conventional wisdom here, but I'll be more explicit this time: The "level-playing field" is a pernicious myth in America that we are taught about from the time we are little kids. Unfortunately, statistics show that it is not based in reality.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a candidate who has "humble roots" (a la Clinton), but there is also nothing inherently superior about these candidates. Pushing a candidate's humble background may do well politically, as it plays to this myth, but I would rather see a candidate pushed on the basis of his or her politics.

Playing to this myth would only seem to reinforce it and thus make it harder to enact policies to help actually level the playing field. After all, people won't see much need to fix a problem they think doesn't exist.

--Peter

[joshcryer]

16. Very well said.

Thank you.

[AP]

22. I disagree. I think it's a powerful, important symbol, especially today

when one of the biggest problems in our society is decreasing power in the hands of people who work for a living and decreasing class mobility.

The Republicans are trying to create a class of wage slaves who exist, in debt, in order to make the rich richer.

It's all about decreasing options and opportunities for people who work for a living, and more money for those who don't.

Of course the level playing field is a myth. That's why we need a president who stands as a symbol for getting one.

It's now or never time. We need a president who will create a society which will make it much much harder for people like Bush to get elected president.

[pmbryant]

40. It is a powerful symbol

I won't disagree with that. Politically, it no doubt can be used to great effect. In the cause of ousting Bush, we need every advantage we can get.

I just happen to think that taking advantage of that powerful symbolism will make it harder to generate enough popular support to enact real policy reform down the road. It reinforces the myth that so many Americans are desperate to believe anyway.

So, personally, I pay no attention to a candidate's family background as long as their politics are acceptable to me.

--Peter

[AP]

50. Huh?

"I just happen to think that taking advantage of that powerful symbolism will make it harder to generate enough popular support to enact real policy reform down the road. It reinforces the myth that so many Americans are desperate to believe anyway."

I don't follow your logic at all. In fact, I think it's the total opposite.

Have you read Wealth and Democracy. Phillips happens to think that not considering the candidate's biography was a big reason Bush beat the Democrats in 2000. He hates Clinton, so he doesn't come out an say it specifically, but suggests that if the demcorats ran a candidate with Clinton's background in 2000 they would have been able to speak with more conviction and credibility about class issues and middle class opportunity.

Ignore biography at your peril.

[pmbryant]

53. What's so confusing?

Getting a Dem president elected and instituting actual policy reform are two different things. I agree with you on how this symbolism is good for getting someone elected, but I disagree on it being good for getting policy reform. (I won't say why again as I don't think I can be any clearer than I was a couple posts earlier (#14), at least not at the moment.)

I actually have Kevin Phillips' book on my reading list. But be sure to let him know that Bush didn't beat the Democrats in 2000. ;-)

--Peter

[AP]

55. Move that book up to the top of your list and get back to me after you...

...read it.

It might help you understand what I'm talking about.

I still don't understand how the symbolism could have a negative impact on the candidate's ability to push through reform as a president. In fact, it gives the candidate more credibility on the issues.

If you're trying to argue that we should bring back the estate tax, who's going to have a more compelling argument to make about why it's important to reinvest in the public infrastructure in order to produce more, productive members of society? The candidate who started with nothing a got everything they have from working hard in public schools, or the guy who is a symbol of the power inheritance can give you?

[pmbryant]

70. Not a major effect

If you're trying to argue that we should bring back the estate tax, who's going to have a more compelling argument to make about why it's important to reinvest in the public infrastructure in order to produce more, productive members of society? The candidate who started with nothing a got everything they have from working hard in public schools, or the guy who is a symbol of the power inheritance can give you?

In the tradition of "only Nixon could go to China", I think this point could actually contradict what you are arguing. The "son of privilege" may actually be in a better position to make the pro-estate tax argument, all else being equal, since claims of "class warfare" will have less traction.

I don't think that's a major effect, though. The ability of a President to institute reforms is affected far more by other factors besides family background: his personality and leadership style, which party controls Congress, the mood of the press and the population at large, and much more.

--Peter

[AP]

71. Nope. People are going to say, how can it be bad if it's part of the

reason that we got you as a president? Can't the princes and princesses of America do good things?

It's too easy for Republicans to exploit, and Kerry wouldn't want to stake any political capital on pushing for it, because it will make him appear insincere.

Notice, Gore didn't really run on a message about class opportunity in 2000 because he couldn't with conviction, given the way he grew up. That's Kevin Philips's point.

Let me know when you read the book.

[Eloriel]

19. That work hard myth doesn't work for everyone -- that's why the

Republicans like to use it -- esp. against minorities and women to whom opportunities have been closed and for whom working hard isn't always going to work. Tokens in positions of power help perpetuate the myth.

America is probably the most opportunity-rich country on earth (or among them) for the common man and woman, but it by no means offers an equal playing field for all. The Horatio Alger myth that some people like to trot out ("if you just work hard enough you too can make it and go as far as you want to") serves to keep us focused AWAY from the inequities (which do extend beyond women and minorities, but they are hardest hit as a rule), AWAY from the exploitation, AWAY from the increasing gap between the wealthiest and the poor, AWAY from the notion of organizing ourselves to achieve more equitable treatment and opportunities.

So, no, I don't think the president should exemplify this myth. I have no problem with extremely wealthy people becoming President -- we've had some superb ones in the past.

Edwards' wealth doesn't bother me, but neither does his "son of a mill worker" mantra work for me -- ESP. since I learned from a fellow DUer (by phone -- so no, no link) the other day that his father wasn't exactly an hourly worker on the floor of the mill. He was a time and motion analyst, then a supervisor, then a plant manager, and then a consultant. The Edwards family may not have been wealthy, but they were solidly middle class.

[AP]

23. His father was a manager who trained college graduates to do his job

so they could get promoted over him.

Edwards had to drop out of Clemson because of not having money. He had to pass on going to Duke for Law School because of money.

He had to narrow his horizons and reduce his opportunities BECAUSE he didn't have the money.

And he still succeeded beyond his horizons.

Americans shouldn't have to make choices like this. No child in America should have to turn down an opportunity to attend the best school to which they're accepted because of money.

People really don't have a problem with these symbols and these issues?

Incidentally, I don't follow the logic at all that the myth is Republican becuase women and minorities are shut out by Republicans from access. Edwards isn't shutting out women and minorities from the symbolic significance of his story, and, in fact, this was the point of his story at the NM debates about the changing demographics of Robbins, N.C.

[ecstatic]

21. yes

I think that most people do wish that, but in the end, money and power has more of an influence on us than we'd like to think.

[AP]

24. Finally, SOMEONE who understands what I'm saying.

Remarkable that it took so long for someone to speak up in defense of my argument.

[revcarol]

7. Right on..

I would have voted for Bobby...but would not be enthusiastic voting for Kerry for other reasons...or Dean, for that matter...

And please get me one of those union-yes bumper stickers to go with my Kucinich bumper sticker. Had some all lined up but a supervisor stole them from a union shop steward's desk!!

[AP]

25. Thanks.

[Straight Shooter]

2. Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high

You're right. But then we wouldn't have someone with the proper temperament to lead the shiftless ignorant masses, would we?

:grr:

[Terwilliger]

3. somebody ELSE who isn't happy with the Kerry coronation

If it makes you feel any better, my Republican father thinks highly of Edwards.

[AP]

8. A lot of Republicans who aren't privileged or stand to inherit lots of $

probably see in Edwards some of the things they thought made them Republicans but actually make them Democrats: people should be able to derive a fair value for their labors.

[DoctorBombay]

4. Not an issue for me.

You can't control what you are born into.

[AP]

10. You can control whom you elect president.

And wouldn't you prefer someone who's a symbol of the notion that, in America, you can start with nothing, work hard, be rewarded, and then have a policy agenda which allows more Americans to have access to that reality.

[Leilani]

31. I agree with you

I'm not saying that wealthy people should not be able to run for office, but as more power is concentrated in the hands of the very wealthy, it serves to further the disconnect between the haves & have-nots.

Look at the Senate...it is called the Millionaire's Club; some people are able to run & succeed without vast wealth, but it is getting less possible.

We are losing our middle class, & if we continue down this path, the country we grew up in will exist no more.

[AP]

33. Thanks. That's the point I'm trying to make. America doesnt need a slight

adjustment right now.

Democracy is seriously threatened. We need to break with the past. And we need a president who stands as symbol of the solution and not one that is a product of the problem.

[Leilani]

41. To AP

I agree completely with your thesis..

I think the practical problem is money in politics...we need to have publicly funded campaigns & free air time (the people own the airwaves) for all candidates.

If we can make it possible for people to run for office without huge fortunes, or without being owned by special interests, then the people would be better represented.

[AP]

44. Not coincidentally, Edwards is the only candidate I've heard say that he

wants public funding for campaigns and free air time.

[DoctorBombay]

47. Would you have voted for Nixon over Kennedy in 1960?

I mean, if growing up poor over priveledge is so important, then Tricky Dick would have been the obvious choice in that election.

Sorry, doesn't matter to me. Voting records mean more to me than birth records.

[AP]

49. Nixon was an imperialist intriguer who served big business, but wanted

to help the working guy. JFK was less of an imperialist, and a little less nasty to foreign countries considering communism and cared more about the working person and really didn't like the corporatocracy very much at all, and used his rhetorical skills to appeal to American's best intincts.

I'd go with JFK.

[La_Serpiente]

6. No

If their views are more or less ensync with mines, then I would gladly vote for the candidate.

[AP]

11. "ensync" with my ideas is the notion that we have a democracy not royalty

"enamerica."

[MercutioATC]

9. When has that NOT been the case?

I don't think they're ALL a waste, though. Some have made a difference. The trick is to predict who will make the "next difference".

It's no secret. My bet's on Dean.

[AP]

13. Call me when he changes his mind about progressive taxation, energy...

...deregulation, and that education plan which transferers taxpayer dollars to wall st student loan companies.

There's more to "you've got the power" than just shouting it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Not necessarily, no.

Some of the "sons of privilege" who HAVE become President have done a damned fine job of it. FDR, JFK, Theodore Roosevelt...one can hope that Kerry, should he secure the nomination and win the general election, will be in the same mold.

And while the idea that hard work can take you to the top is nice, it is more a persistent myth than an actual reality. One hopes that's something that will change, though.

[AP]

17. FDR was called a class traitor. Blumenthal spends a couple pages in The

Clinton Wars explaining why JFK appealed to working class people (Catholicism made JFK an cultural outsider, his family were recent immigrants, and he was 1/10th as wealthy as LBJ). Also, everybody was feeling rich in the 60s. If we were ever going to elect someone who seemed like a millionaire playboy, it was then. He was also an exception in terms of persuing policies which help people who work for a living. It got him shot, probably.

[joshcryer]

15. I'm more bothered by candidates who take the majority of their...

...donations in $2000 dollar goes. I prefer my candidate to be more supported by those who can't just give out $2000 at the drop of a hat.

[AP]

18. Edwards's donors have the lowest average income and give the greatest

percentage of their annual income.

[joshcryer]

27. Do you have a source for that?

Thanks.

[AP]

29. Fundrace.org -- here you go (avg. income of donors):

http://www.fundrace.org/avgInc.html

The first set is the ranking/avg inc. of donors this quarter, second set is last quarter.

   Joseph I Lieberman
#1
$74.2k
#1
$74.5k

   John F Kerry
#2
$71.3k
#2
$71.9k

   Wesley General Clark
#3
$65.1k
#4
$64.4k

   George W Bush
#4
$64.9k
#3
$66.7k

   Howard Dean
#5
$61.5k
#5
$62.5k

   John Edwards
#6
$58.3k
#7
$58.8k

   Alfred C Sharpton
#7
$57.4k
#6
$60.5k

   Dennis J Kucinich
#8
$57.3k
#8
$58.0k

[AP]

30. And here are the numbers for % of income:

Avg % of Income Donated
This Quarter
Last Quarter

   John Edwards
#1
3.3%
#1
3.3%

   George W Bush
#2
2.7%
#2
2.9%

   Alfred C Sharpton
#3
2.2%
#3
2.7%

   John F Kerry
#4
2.1%
#4
2.2%

   Joseph I Lieberman
#5
2.0%
#6
2.1%

   Wesley General Clark
#6
1.9%
#5
2.1%

   Dennis J Kucinich
#7
1.4%
#7
1.5%

   Howard Dean
#8
1.2%
#8
1.2%



http://www.fundrace.org/avgPInc.html

[joshcryer]

39. Interesting.

I question the validity of averages in this context though.

[AP]

43. They're based on data for Zip codes of donors.

Even if you question whether they're precisely right, you can't deny that people who like Edwards tend to come from zip codes where poorer people live.

What is your precise problem with these numbers?

Edwards is all about spreading power from the top down, and it looks like people who give to him live close to people who are on the down side rather than then top side.

[joshcryer]

51. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

A candidate gets 100 $75 donations, but three $2000 dollar donations.

The median would be $80-$85. But the average is something like $160.

The disparity between incomes doesn't really change anything for me, since it's only a few K between Edwards and Dean.

What might've swayed me is the argument that more people donate more to Edwards out of their own pocket than any other supporters, but then it sort of conflicts with the idea that people want a "poor candidate who climbed the ladder" since one would associate that with a candidate with far lower donations per person. If anything it's sending the idea that candidates can/should be bought by a few rather than many. The idea of climbing the economic ladder is that many support one another, not the few support even fewer.

[AP]

52. Fact: Edwards donors live in zip codes where people are are $12-13K poorer

than Kerry donors, and the amount the give is a greater % of the avg income in those zip codes.

Where are people wealthy? In the DC-NY-BOS power corridors, and zip codes where CEOs live? Where are people poorer? The rest of America?

It's a worthwhile stat to consider.

By the way, take a look at Dean's FEC statements. Lots of small donations from a single donor in Beverly Hills. You see that over and over again.

[madrchsod]

20. hmmmm

truman-$
ike-$
kennedy-$$$$$
johnson-wifes money
nixon-dirt poor
ford-$
carter-$
reagan-wifes money
bush-$$$$$
clinton-$

[AP]

28. America - FUBAR, in about T minus 4 years if we don't get it right

and part of the reason is because of all those presidents who can't turn this tide against the corporatocracy.

The Kennedys tried and got shot. FDR tried and got it right, but nobody's really doing a great job of preserving his legacy.

[BOHICA06]

35. Nice list ...

so again its the character not the cash. JFK & GHWB - both had limmoed upbringings, went to war in dangerous roles, and turned out about as different as two men could. Could say that Nixon & Clinton had similarly poor childhoods through high school - awfully different again.

[AP]

36. Kerry seems to be a symbol of the idea that if you're rich and come from

a good family you can create a biography which can make you president some day.

I don't know how that speaks to the problems in America today.

[BOHICA06]

45. Teddy Roosevelt ...

did that for himself. Joe Kennedy work the magic for JFK. So its not a new idea.

An aside: As I get older and understand the stress of incresed responsibilities, I think anyone that really wants to be president for 4 or eight years is blipping nuts. So that make Gerald Ford between 73-76 the only sane president we've had since Washington.

[AP]

48. TR was a rich pro-business imperialist and a racist who happened

to know better than Mark Hannah what was good for business (ie, competition, and an America that reinvested in public infrastructure, and didn't let any one industry get too big). Mark Twain hated TR.

[coloradodem2005]

26. Sort of.

Bush pisses me off because he is the premier example of nepotism. He has no talent or intelligence. He has gotten where he is based solely on money and his family name. While the Kennedys are considered by many to be equivalent, I think that the Kennedy brothers, especially JFK were smart people.

[ibegurpard]

32. Not at all

What DOES bother me, however, is people who weren't standing up to the Republicans when the chips were down expecting me to believe that they will do so in the future.

[AP]

34. Doing what they have to do to keep America safe and make sure they can

get elected is standing up to Republicans when the chips are down.

Anyone who voted against IWR will not be president because Republicans will portray that person as a danger to national security.

I would be pissed off if a candidate who promised to change America sabotage their own campaign by stepping into that very obvious trap. I'd also have to question their intelligence.

[TheDonkey]

37. No, I'm bothered by rethugs becoming president

I like the fact that people can work themselves from nothing and be qualified for the presidency but in the end, who ever gets the most votes, has the platform and creditials should get the job.

[AP]

38. And they're creating a world in which only rich Democrats can get elected.

Especially if they play the corporate-a-go-go and cloak themselves in a few liberal single-interest group garments. (Gore and the environment anyone? Ugh.)

Woopee.

[cindyw]

42. Not really. I judge people by what they do with their lives and not by

where they come from. What edwards says is right, but it is wrong for it not to go both ways.

[AP]

46. I tend to agree with that.

However, you could be the most liberal person in the world and be a reformed fellon who has served time for murder and rape and I say to you, please don't run for president -- it's the wrong symbol for America.

That's why I say if there's a tie -- you have two great candidates and only one of them stands as a symbol of the things that SHOULD be great about America (equal opportunity on a level playing field, and the opportunity to reap a fair percentage of the wealth your labors create) -- I'd say go with that one candidate with the background that's a good symbol for Americans.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. I guess you'd have to look at the previous Democratic 'sons of privilege'

[AP]

56. Class traitors. No other options. Could you imagine the power of a JFK or

LBJ who did the same things, but came from the working class? Huey P. Long?

Furthermore, we're on the verge of totally destroying class mobility. We can't joke around here. If we pick a president who isn't a powerful symbol of what we need to repair, I'm worried that America is going to fall apart.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. Maybe John Edwards' positive message will win out

and you won't have to worry about the disaster that will result if America elects some OTHER Democrat. :eyes:

[AP]

58. Do you not think that we're not at a crossroads?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. What point are you trying to make?

[AP]

62. I was trying to figure out what your point was.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. My point is that if Edwards wins,

you won't have to worry about the disaster that will happen if some other Democrat wins.

[AP]

65. with or without the eyes rolling?

I'm not sure that any other Democrat can win. And if they do, I'm not sure that any other democrat is willing to address what is fundamentally wrong with America (because what's fundamentally wrong with America -- inherited privilege, business friendliness, the power of money in DC -- is part of what might have gotten that other Democrat to the presidency).

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. Yes.

I'm sure you'll come around eventually.

[corporatewhore]

59. time to have a union card holder like DK in office imho

[Emillereid]

60. Face it folks -- as Emmanuel Todd says, we live in an oligarchy.

That we still have the freedom to blather on about stuff probably just indicates that thus far we have said or done nothing that threatens the ruling class.

[bigtree]

64. Go for it

I anxiously await your resume and your background info. :D

[Lexingtonian]

66. And to top it off, Horatio Alger was gay!

Does anyone else wish that the president of the united states were more of a symbol of the idea that with hard work, a level playing field and equality of opportunity, you can rise to the top, and then create a world in which others can do the same?

Actually, you've just described Richard Milhouse Nixon. It was a lot of a certain kind of hard work getting those ballot boxes stuffed at USC which made him student government president. That level playing field and equality of opportunity took him into the Vice Presidency.

Ambition opens a hell of a lot of doors, even those that don't look open to people of your own class. Personal integrity is the problem you're not exactly making a criterion of importance, but it discriminates between Nixon/Reagan and Carter/Clinton where ambition and humble beginnings do not in explaining their commitments and relative sufferings.

I have to say, your responses to some things already said here strike me as classist. "Traitors to their class" means you are quite ignorant of what the upper classes are like and impute much to them that isn't the truth about them. The point of being part of the upper classes is that, unlike the middle class, you don't have to conform to bosses and popular tastes and conventions and peers to anywhere near the extent lower classes have to. Rather more of them find the fulfillment of their lives in service to than abuse of society at large, at least in those parts of the country where the notion of nobility isn't merely a theory believed in elsewhere.

As for your demand for "symbolism", it's hard for me not to think that "narcissism" would be a better fit. It's a p.o.v. of The Other Side, isn't it, that an All-American sort of person who doesn't look like you and doesn't ape your regional and class characteristics obviously is incapable of representing and implementing your best interests?

[fujiyama]

67. Tom DeLay...

comes from a "humble" background. He was an exterminator before entering congress.

He also turns out to be the biggest fascist in the House.

As for those with money vs. those without it, it depends on who has the better policies. I appreciate the fact that Kucinich really knows what it was like to be poor growing up, then educating himself, and becoming succesful. The great thing is he hasn't forgotten what it was like and he wants to extend help to those in need. I have the same respect for Edwards and Clinton.

However, I admire the fact that Kerry was willing to volunteer for the military, though he was from a class of privalege, and risk his life for his country...His record in the senate (disregarding IWR and the PATRIOT act), is also great. He has always supported progressive policies. For example, the bankruptcy reform bill - Kerry voted against it..There's a law that mostly hurts working people...

There are some wealthy senators that are pretty good like Sen. Jon Corzine of NJ.

And as someone stated FDR and JFK were from wealthy families. Nixon was from a pretty humble background.

[AP]

72. Delay is a fascist. OK, lets take Hamilton as an example. He came

from the humblest of backgrounds, and then spent his life trying to enter the world of wealth and privilege he was embarassed not to have come from. He had class anxiety that motivate his drive for power, and his desire to help NY bankers become powerful. (Hitler was similar.)

Jefferson was Hamilton's opposite, and cared about power flowing down to the VA farmers he knew.

In both cases, biography tells you a great deal about who these people are and why they fought for what they did. The sad fact in America is that you aren't going to find many Huey P. Longs in American politics. If you're poor and look after the poor too well, they destroy you (like they did to MLK and Long, and they even tried to impeach Clinton). If you're rich, and care about the poor, you might get away with it (for a little while, at least, but they tried a coup against FDR, and shot JFK). If you're poor and want to ingratiate yourself on the rich, you might rise to the top (Nixon, Hamilton, DeLay).

But the point is, biography totally matters. And if you're rich now, and you want to give everything you have to help people have the same experience of America you were lucky to have, well that's a POTENT mix, and we should all realize that. That's a conviction and an intensity that can only deliver great things for America.

[Piperay]

69. No not really

the Kennedys came from a wealthy background and have done more for the underprivileged than most anyone else. Roosevelt also came from a privileged background but created the New Deal.

[AP]

73. You think there's no link between biography, policy and experience?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

74. Yes, I am bothered by more Skull & Bones aristocrats claiming the offices

of government.

[JVS]

75. It's the American way.

I know of only one country where the son of a shoe-maker (an ethnic minority as well), the son of a steelworker, and a man who himself was a miner became the national leaders.