Who Benefits from Class Warfare?

There’s something I don’t understand about the rhetoric of the Republican party in the U.S.  (There’s a lot I don’t like about the rhetoric, but I understand most of it).  The confusing part is why Republicans will say “but that’s class warfare” when someone proposes taxing the rich.  Of course it’s class warfare, but why would the Republican (who is siding with the rich) throw this out as an objection to the tax?  What do they hope to gain from saying that?  Is that supposed to make the Democrat/Populist who is proposing the tax feel guilty and back off?  Do they think the middle- and lower-class public will turn against the tax because they call it “warfare”?  The upper class people affected by the tax probably already oppose it without any such rhetoric being required.

First, to be clear, the U.S., like almost all modern societies, is in a constant state of class warfare.  The rich attack the poor through low wages, job off-shoring, union busting, tax havens and loopholes, the war on drugs, the Fed, unfair barriers to entry in business, collusion, and gated communities, among other things.  The poor attack the rich through unionization, progressive politics, property crimes, and, well, the poor don’t have too many weapons in the war.  These aspects of our culture are well know to everyone, even if we don’t commonly think of them as “war”.

So how does our perception of these aspects of our society change when we apply a warfare metaphor to them?  War is the ultimate, most intense, and most overt form of human conflict.  It makes people feel afraid and sad, but also energized, unrestrained, and righteous.  In contrast, chronic, low-level conflict makes people feel anxious, sad, helpless, and encourages escapism through drugs and entertainment.

The usual state of class conflict in the U.S. is the subtle, unconscious form which anesthetizes and disempowers the lower classes.  This is the state of conflict which most favors the rich, since it keeps the poor down, struggling to survive within the system, without them ever considering that the system could be changed.  Keeping the existence of class conflict hidden from the minds of the uninformed ensures that they will not fight.  Raising the conflict into awareness can only help the poor, by pointing out to them that they are in conflict already, and that fighting to improve their situation is an option.  This is why I think it’s nonsensical and counterproductive to the agenda of a rich-loving Republican to cry “class warfare”.

Progressives, advocates for the poor and for labor, and the poor and dispossessed themselves could only better their situation by promoting the warfare metaphor.  “Eat the Rich!” should be the rallying cry and starting point for all negotiations from the progressive side.  If the unemployed middle-American laborers, hopeless urban black youths, and pissed-on immigrants of this country got energized and righteous, they could easily be lead into riots of looting, robbery, and burning down those gated communities.  The rich have the police and military on their side, but the poor have guns too, and they have the numbers.  And they have new technologies for organizing.  And they have new forms of guerrilla warfare being developed every day.  If they weren’t constantly anesthetized by TV into thinking that they can’t improve their plight, that they deserve to get nothing because the American dream favors others who are somehow better than themselves, the resulting boiling over of the ongoing conflict would surely turn the tide in favor of the poor.  The rich would have to disguise themselves in order to walk the city streets without being attacked.  Rich moms would need armed guards to protect their children at home and when they drive their Cadillac Escaldes out of the gated communities.  Corporate productivity and profits would plummet.  Taxation would seem pretty good in comparison.

This particular post is not advocating for either side in the class conflict that exists (and will continue to exist as long as inequality exists).  I am merely discussing rhetoric, and both sides can benefit from this, if they choose to.  If the rich want to take rhetorical advice from this post, it would be “stop talking about class warfare”.  Go back to confusing economic theories, earnest-looking politicians wanting to “do the right thing for Americans”, and TV shows that allow the masses to glimpse the lifestyles of the rich and famous, and fantasize that one day they could join the rich.  If the poor want to change anything, if they want to really have a chance of becoming comfortable (rich is out of the question for 99.99% of you), then they should turn “Class Warfare!” into their rallying cry.  Warfare is going on anyway, in secret and subtle ways.  You’re losing the war, white American worker.  You’re useful only as long as you keep your mouths shut, immigrants.  You’re only good for feeding our prison industry, you black city dwellers.  Don’t like that?  Bring the conflict out in the open.  Rights and privileges are never given, only taken.

Why Are Ron Paul Supporters So ________?

Why are Ron Paul supporters so (insert adjective here)?  Some of the adjectives commonly used to describe Ron Paul's supporters in the media are "fervent", "die hard", "dedicated", "loyal", and "enthusiastic".  For those wishing to deride Dr. Paul and his fans, the most commonly used adjective is "rabid", implying that his supporters are mentally ill and need to be put down.  If you type "Ron Paul supporters are " into Google, you'll be offered the suggestions "crazy", "idiots", and "terrorists".  Why do Ron Paul supporters have so many strong adjectives applied to them?

The answer lies in what happens when you substitute any of the other Republican candidates into the above Google experiment.  Entering "Mitt Romney supporters are " gives no suggestions whatsoever.  I think this is because there are no Mitt Romney supporters.  There are only the great masses of people who are willing to live with him because they find him the least offensive of the bunch.  For Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry, there are no suggestions because there are no human supporters to which we can apply adjectives.  Bachmann and Perry are manufactured candidates, produced by the party, lobbyists, and media, but enjoying no support whose energy originates with people.  People like Ron Paul, and people have personalities.  What kind of supporters should a candidate have?  "Luke warm"?  "Unoffensive"?  "Bored"?  If a candidate doesn't have enthusiastic supporters, what business do they have running for office?

I believe the reason Ron Paul supporters are so different from other candidates' supporters is that Ron Paul is different.  All of the others are just run-of-the-mill slick politicians.  They say what they think will get them elected.  When they are speaking, the are acting the part of candidate.  Ron Paul does not act; he is himself at all times.  Love him or hate him, his genuineness and sincerity are beyond doubt.

Many people believe that politicians are generally self-serving liars, but they are willing to live with this because they feel they have no choice.  The TV show South Park is generally too low-brow offensive for me, but I recently agreed to watch an episode my wife said would explain why she doesn't get involved in politics the way I do.  The episode centered around the election of a new mascot for South Park Elementary School.  The candidates jokingly offered by students were "Big Douche" and "Turd Sandwich".  Despite the obvious offensiveness of the candidates and the resulting meaninglessness of the race, the episode revolves around the community's efforts to show how important voting is to the one student who refuses to participate.  The accuracy with which this fictional scenario mirrors our actual presidential elections is frightening.  Is Romney "Big Douche" and Perry "Turd Sandwich", or is it the the other way around?  Why do we get so worked up about elections when these are the choices offered to us?  Well, I guess only some of us get worked up about it.  The rest stay home and watch the latest home improvement shows on TV.  Which group is more realistic about the effects of our elections?

Once in a while, however, a candidate comes along who appears to be different from the constant stream of bad choices our two-party system offers us.  Barack Obama appeared to be such a candidate, and that's why he had so many enthusiastic supporters who helped get him elected.  This is not an Obama-bashing essay, but I'll make the prediction that the enthusiasm and dedication of Obama's supporters in 2012 will be a pale shadow of what it was in 2008.   The main reason?  Obama has shown himself to be just like all the rest.

So why do pundits and party operatives commonly use scary adjectives to disparage Ron Paul supporters and their candidate?  I believe this is because so many people who make their living and form their identities from the status quo of our adversarial two-party system are afraid Ron Paul will upset the apple cart.  Ron Paul differs from the other candidates when he behaves like a grownup who wants to get down to the boring, difficult, and drawn-out process of governing.  The media and the public, understandably, feel more interested in the political theater of horse races, dramatic showdowns, and "us vs. them" proselytizing.  What we need to ask ourselves is, would we rather be entertained by our political system, or would we rather have it work for safety and prosperity in our everyday lives?  We can't have it both ways.  Running a country like the United States has a million technical details, all very important.  It feels good to listen to inspiring speeches, but in the end, these don't make good government.

Ron Paul supporters are...different.  They believe that substance matters much, much more than style.  They are not willing to vote for Big Douche or Turd Sandwich, and they can't understand why everyone else is content to do so.  They are trying to wake us up, saying "look, this one really is different!", and he can help us out of the mess we're in.  Sounds like something worth shouting about to me.  If a candidate's supporters are so loyal and active that this enthusiasm is itself worthy of commentary, shouldn't we all be curious enough to find out what's got them so worked up?