If we can't frame the debate as democracy vs. plutocracy, what can we frame it as?

[highplainsdem]

I posted a topic this morning saying that Democrats need to start using the word "plutocracy" regularly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x570787

It seemed like a fairly obvious point, and I was surprised by the objections.

It's true there might be some people who are unfamiliar with the term, but the solution to that is to USE the term, not shy away from it or latch onto other words that don't really convey the same meaning, on the assumption Americans will never understand the correct term for what we're discussing (I don't believe we should underestimate people that way).

We've seen other examples of words that hadn't been in common usage becoming popular because they were the only words that fit.

I don't recall ever hearing of male chauvinists, for instance, before the women's movement.

We need to frame this debate. And there are no other terms that carry the same meanings as plutocracy and plutocrats.

This debate isn't simply about "the rich" (whether described that way or more pejoratively). This is about those rich people who use their wealth to control government to increase their own wealth and power at the expense of the poor and middle class. We all know not everyone who's rich should be considered a plutocrat. There are rich people who use their wealth and influence for humanitarian, progressive causes.

This isn't just about capitalism per se, since capitalism can (and always should) be regulated, and saying something like "capitalist pigs" instead of "plutocrats" will almost instantly create a capitalist-vs-socialist/communist dichotomy that RWers are usually all too happy to use to frame the debate.

Democracy vs. plutocracy, OTOH, is a way we can frame the debate and win. There aren't very many people who will be comfortable advocating plutocracy, especially as an alternative to democracy.

Most progressive issues will fit within this framework. Including recognizing and trying to rein in the military-industrial complex.

There simply don't seem to be any other terms that fit. There are reasons Bill Moyers and Paul Krugman use the terms plutocrat and plutocracy.

And Democrats shouldn't shy away from them.

John Nichols even referred to the GOP as the Grand Old Plutocrats in this column for The Nation last December:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/156825/grand-old-plutocrats

He made it clear, as we need to make it clear, that our disagreement is not simply with "the rich" -- and he explains why we shouldn't call Republicans "the party of the rich":

That characterization is unfair to the rich. There are many millionaires whose economic good sense—not just concerns about debts and deficits but also respect for the economic benefits associated with equity—has led them to argue that they should pay more. Organizations such as Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength have written members of Congress, arguing that "now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way."

Nichols argues that the GOP is the party of the "greed is good" contingent favoring rule by the rich.

The Republican Party, founded by radicals and led well into the twentieth century by political players such as Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, who feared the excesses of elitism, monopoly and plutocracy, has become the champion of elitism, monopoly and plutocracy.

-snip-

With many of America's wealthiest individuals arguing that their tax breaks should expire, House Republicans are actually more enthusiastic about giving tax breaks to the rich than are the rich.

-snip-

This is about what kind of country America is going to be: a plutocracy designed to best serve the elites or a democracy designed to best serve the great mass of Americans.

Democrats vs. Grand Old Plutocrats

That's our framework.

That's what this fight is about.

I don't know of any better way to frame it. Do you?

[markpkessinger]

1. That's partly b/c the wealthy have succeeded in purchasing people in both parties n/t

[highplainsdem]

3. But it's less the case with Democrats, and our policies and goals favor the plutocrats less.

And the more we talk about Democrats vs. plutocrats, the more likely we are to maintain and increase those differences.

[rpannier]

2. Plutocracy doesn't work

Because too many people will tell you Plutocracy is not a planet anymore or
They liked Plutocracy. He was a great friend of Mickey Mouse.

[highplainsdem]

4. I think you're underestimating people.

[rpannier]

5. I have no doubt I am

BUt I saw the opportunity for being able to use the work "Plutocracy" for fun and jumped at it.
I still think there are a lot of REALLY ill-informed people out there who would have no idea what the terms mean.

[BadgerKid]

9. Calling them "elite" and "living like kings" people get w/o thinking.

But basically I was thinking along the line you suggested.

[HEyHEY]

6. "You living in a box" vrs "Them only having three sports cars"

[highplainsdem]

19. Good example of the problem, and there are lots of them. But we need a simple term, a specific one.

[rpannier]

7. Re-read your post

It's actually quite good.
Give you a K&R

[highplainsdem]

18. Thanks!

:)

[grahamhgreen]

8. I like democracy vs. plutocracy! how bout

"tax the hoarders", "tax the hoarding class"...

[leftstreet]

10. Working Class vs Ruling Class

...but I'm not sure where the Democratic party fits in there

:beer:

[Cowpunk]

11. Class Warfare is the term I use.

This is a term many people hear often, but it hasn't really been defined too well. I try to define it for people as the acts of a small minority bent on enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of us. People know damn well that's what is going on here. Class warfare is a frame anyone can understand. It's us versus them, which side are you on?

[OHdem10]

12. I think it is a good idea. I refer to our Aristocracey on a regular

basis. You know the "Ruling Class" who make all the decisions
and try to let us think it is our idea.

Right now it is the Ruling Class pushing SS REFORM and
of course the Republicans are anxious to please.

[snot]

13. I use "the oligarchs" or "the powerful."

I agree, that usually means the wealthy; but I think power is what it's really all about.

E.g., in the current infowar, it's become clear that the battle is betw. info power structures, and that info and control over information technologies (e.g., servers, PayPal, etc.) constitute real power.

[AndyTiedye]

14. I Favor The Term "Robber Barons"

Some people don't even know what a "plutocracy" is, but everyone knows what robber barons are.

[opihimoimoi]

15. The GOPers are a Party of HATEFUL BULLIES...that should be enough

They are Hatefull people....not a good trait....who wants to work for a Hatefull Boss who is also a BULLY? see what I mean...no one likes a Bully

unless its another bully....

[NuttyFluffers]

16. democracy v. bunch'a fat cat thieves! (see, just define plutocracy, is all)

people don't like feeling exposed of their ignorance. plutocracy would leave them asking, what's a pluto, wasn't he Mickey Mouse's dog, and why does he control a government? however, far more adults understand 'fat cat thieves!' because it uses smaller words. and thus they would be more amenable to agreeing with you because they don't feel out of touch with what you are saying.

:)

yes, i do feel enough americans (and people in general) are that unaware of polysyllabic vocabulary, and that this is a major issue standing in the way of your framing.

[reformist2]

17. Plutocracy is a good word - it sounds so "out of this world" to modern ears.

And this is good because it makes people think of such levels of wealth as excessive and undeserved.

[woo me with science]

20. Stop siphoning from us.

We have to come up with something that stresses the CHANGE. It's not just a bad economy. Something about the fundamental STRUCTURE has been changed so that money is being siphoned from us to the wealthy.