PLANK SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
CHARLOTTE—The prime time speeches that Julian Castro and Michelle Obama gave on Tuesday evening were full of warm, endearing personal details—whether it was Castro talking about his grandmother working as a maid or Obama talking about her father struggling to pay her college bills. But these personal stories had a clear and—in the case of the First Lady’s speech—surprisingly edgy political message.
Politicians from both parties talk about uniting America. But, to simplify things a bit, this election is really a debate about how to divide America. The Republicans are trying to drive a wedge between the middle class and the poor. The Democrats are trying to drive a wedge between the rich and the middle class.
The Republicans talk about “makers” and “takers”—about virtuous, hard-working people who pay taxes that the government, at the behest of Democrats, sends to the frequently undeserving poor. That is the point of attacks on President Obama for, supposedly, raiding Medicare to pay for Obamacare and gutting the work requirements of welfare. In the Democratic narrative, by contrast, it’s the rich taking advantage of everybody else—and seeking to destroy public services, like Social Security or public schools, on which the vast majority of Americans rely. That is why the Democrats keep hammering away at Bain Capital, Romney’s tax returns, and the draconian implications of the Romney-Ryan budget proposals.
Both attacks work because, from the standpoint of the middle class—or, at least, the white middle class—each candidate and each party fit the part. Romney is a wealthy businessman representing a party whose members are disproportionately wealthy. Obama is an African-American who used to be relatively poor, representing a whole lot of non-white people who are still poor. And that’s what made the speaker selection on Tuesday so interesting: On the first night of prime time coverage, with a precious opportunity to engage the small proportion of American voters who haven’t made up their minds about the election, the Democratic Party chose as its public face a Latino and an African-American.
That might not seem like an ideal way to win over the white working- and middle-class. But that’s where the message of the two speeches came in. The clear, unmistakable argument of each was that these groups, and the members of their party, believe in the work ethic every bit as much as the Republicans do—and that, unlike the Republicans, they understand hard work alone isn’t a guarantor of success.
Castro honed in on this theme about halfway into his speech:
Mitt Romney, quite simply, doesn’t get it. A few months ago he visited a university in Ohio and gave the students a little entrepreneurial advice. “Start a business,” he said. But how? “Borrow money if you have to from your parents,” he told them. Gee, why didn’t I think of that?
It was the most pointed passage of the speech and, I thought, the most devastating. And while you expect that from a keynote speaker, Michelle Obama made essentially the same argument:
And he believes that when you’ve worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity…you do not slam it shut behind you…you reach back, and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed.
The First Lady didn’t mention Romney or Ryan by name—not there and not anywhere else in the speech. But the reference to their agenda, and to the Republican Party’s, was clear. (Michelle even defended the Affordable Care Act, in no uncertain terms.) And so was the broader message. We want to make sure you have the same opportunities we did. They don’t.
Did it work? Will it make a difference? As usual, I have no idea. But the stark political message seemed entirely appropriate, given the stark contrast between the two parties and the high stakes of the election.
Update: With some edits for clarity and style.
follow me on Twitter @CitizenCohn
10 comments
No, no, no. The Republicans are trying to drive a wedge, true. If they can convince the middle-class to vote for their patrician policies, by characterizing the poor as a bunch of freeloaders who don't deserve any help -- they win. The Democrats are trying to unite America -- but the Republicans are using this class warfare meme to confuse the issues. If Republicans want, through under-taxation, to feather their own nests at the expense of the middle-class and the poor, that's not a CLASS issue, that's a Republican issue. And if they then lie about it, saying under-taxation is good for business and the middle-class and the poor, again that's a Republican issue. And for Democrats to call them on this propaganda isn't a CLASS issue, it's an issue of truth. The American people need to make a choice -- but if the Republicans distort the truth, it's up to the Democrats to remove that distortion.
- AllanL5
September 5, 2012 at 8:12am
So, okay, the Republicans want to divide America in class lines, characterizing the poor as lazy freeloaders who don't deserve any help. While the Democrats are trying to divide America between those who ignore inconvenient truths or lie about them, and those who really care what the truth is. But however you look at it, it's not the same. Republicans want to divide and conquer. Democrats want to clarify and have an informed populace vote their own best interests. This leads to very different approaches and policies.
- AllanL5
September 5, 2012 at 8:27am
The two-wedges meme ignores an important reality: Democrats are not trying to marginalize the wealthy to the benefit of the poor or the middle class. They're not trying to marginalize them at all - we just want recognition in policy of two important ideas: First, that society should reward it's members for more than just risk taking and power seeking - that things like hard work, community values, and basic steadfast resilience are all worthy of being rewarded with a shot at a decent living; and second, that certain benefits, like healthcare and a modest, dignified old age, are so basic to social cohesion that we have to work together to assure that all have access to them, regardless of whether they are very fortunate or less so. The rich won't become impoverished or even significantly less privileged in any conceivable Democratic ascendancy; but more people will become genuinely poor and struggle to maintain the basics of life under the policies proposed by Republicans. You only have to look at history to verify this.
- IowaBeauty
September 5, 2012 at 9:12am
"The Republicans are trying to drive a wedge between the middle class and the poor. The Democrats are trying to drive a wedge between the rich and the middle class." And the gap between the middle class and the rich has gotten wider, while the gap between the middle class and the poor has gotten narrower. The political question is how the middle class interprets those changes in the gap: as resulting from give aways from the middle class to the poor that has narrowed that gap, or as resulting from exploitation of the middle class by the rich that has widened that gap. The difficulty is that the middle class is comprised of two distinct groups: the (relatively young and white) working middle class and the (relatively old and white) non-working middle class. The former bears a marginal tax burden far higher than that of the rich (because almost all of their income is subject to both payroll tax and income tax), while the latter bears a marginal tax burden far lower than the working middle class (because so much of their income isn't taxed). Hence, it's no surprise that many of the working middle class see a narrowing of the gap between the middle class and the poor as resulting from give aways to the poor. Obama's first term was devoted in part to helping the working middle class, with passage of ACA and the payroll tax holiday, though many in the working middle class view ACA as a give away to the poor. The Romney-Ryan plan, such as it is, would focus on the rich at the expense of the working middle class, with more tax cuts for the rich financed in part by tax increases (income or payroll) for the working middle class and rescission of ACA. As for the non-working middle class, Obama would, for the most part, continue the non-working middle class (non-taxable) benefits (social security and Medicare) and the working middle class, while Romney-Ryan would (most likely) reduce those benefits for the current working middle class while continuing them (supposedly) for the current non-working middle class. Romney-Ryan's plan has driven a wedge between the working middle class and the non-working middle class. Liberals must consider the sources of the wedges: a dual tax system (payroll taxes and income taxes) and multiple health care systems. As long as they exist, the rich will have the advantage because they can drive wedges between the middle class and the poor and between the working middle class and the non-working middle class. I believe elimination of the dual tax system is achievable; payroll taxes do not fund social benefits alone but have been used to offset income tax cuts for the rich: $2.7 trillion of payroll taxes were used to fund government expenses other than social benefits. I also believe that a single payer health care system is achievable; the alternative is an ever-increasing wedge between the working middle class and the non-working middle class.
- rayward
September 5, 2012 at 9:28am
Interesting analysis, Rayward. I have two quibbles -- apparently your "middle-class" is exclusively white, where I believe there's a large black, hispanic, oriental, etc. component to it. My second quibble is much larger -- most of the current deficit we're seeing now is a direct result of the Bush tax-cuts. And two wars started without raising taxes to pay for them. Blaming social programs for the deficit, when it was tax-cuts that caused it in the first place, is an unnecessary and incorrect conclusion. Don't forget -- when Bush-II came into office, he had a balanced budget, and that was with the current social programs.
- AllanL5
September 5, 2012 at 10:03am
Hell, the only reason Republicans have any life is because unemployment is above 8% (never mind how hard they have worked to keep it there). By modern historical standards they should be in the clear lead now but they have been running a pretty terrible campaign. The Republican method of division will have no long range traction unless by some miracle voodoo economics works under a Romney Presidency. I am not saying Democrats don't screw up too, taking God out of the platform was simply idiotic but there is no question the Democratic method is far more successful.
- blackton
September 5, 2012 at 11:34am
The current wedge is with whites, not blacks. I made no comment about the source of the deficit, or the deficit for that matter. True, the rich may create wedges in the future between ethnic groups, such as hispanics and blacks (as they have done between poor and middle class whites and blacks), but other than outright racism, the dual tax system and multiple health care system are the most likely sources of the wedges. Of course, one cannot miss the irony: liberals created the dual tax system and the multiple health care systems. What magnified the dual tax system was the social security reform passed in the 1980s, which increased payroll taxes many times over. The reform passed with Democratic support, but the single person most responsible probably was Senator Dole. Another irony: hard core conservatives hate Dole because, according to them, he blocked Reagan from getting the Republican nomination in 1976. As for the multiple health care systems, ACA created another one, this time for the nearly poor. One has to wonder if Democrats are self-destructive, or maybe they are simply dumb.
- rayward
September 5, 2012 at 11:43am
I disagree that the Democrats are trying to drive a wedge between the rich and the rest of us. What we are trying to say is that we're all part of the same wonderfully diverse community and that we need each other. I keep hearing about how we "resent success," which is absurd. All the testimony last night was about success. We do perhaps define it differently. Some of us could probably have become well to do in financial terms but spent our lives perfecting an art form instead, or teaching, or doing other relatively low-paying but satisfying work. Others, like Lilly Ledbetter and countless women who suffered pay discrimination, or people who experience racism, work their butts off and would be MUCH better off if the game wasn't rigged against us. We Democrats are trying to end these abuses. So, the definition of "success" as "rich" has got to go, #1. #2, people need a fair shot. This includes good food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, and equal pay for equal work. As it is the system is definitely rigged and the Republicans are trying to go backwards as fast as possible. #3 Michelle Obama's comment about not closing the door behind you as you climb up is on the nose. Rich people who engage in top down class warfare are in my opinion not such good Americans. Example those who have ganged up on Obama from Day #1, trying to make sure he's a one term president and blocking his attempts to improve the economy. They hurt the rest of us and they hurt their country. This includes their reluctance even to see how workers, artists, mothers, and the environment and our infrastructure, the government with its myriad tasks, all contribute to individual success. It also includes their refusal to contribute appropriately. It definitely includes their refusal to work with the Democrats to help create jobs and fix the infrastructure and protect the environment, which cannot be replaced. The "we built it" thing going on in Tampa, a slap and distortion of Obama's very correct speech about how we all contribute, is really off base and it's relevant to this discussion. Most of the rich people I've known were born into wealth and privilege and had the best educations, built in connections, medical care, clothes and then they improved or maintained their situations (although not always - some blew huge amounts of money, maybe even got hooked on drugs and totally screwed up but even they still have big fat safety nets waiting for them! Why? Because they're related to somebody with money that's why.) The American Dream is one of promise, not only of material success but of equal opportunity for all. It's worth remembering this and the speeches last night reiterated it. Some wealthy people got that way because of talent, athletic ability, beauty or political skill, like Obama. The children of immigrants, like Castro, can rise to positions of power and influence because of democracy and because of open-hearted American people who refuse to discriminate, because of our laws which give us all the right to vote and the right to participate in our world. But the Obama and the Castro family are not forgetting their roots nor what they owe the community. Tammy Duckworth isn't forgetting her crew, the other veterans who've sacrificed so much. They want to help the rest of us. That's in stark contrast to the GOP message which truly is divisive. I hope rich people with hearts and minds can see the difference and will help us. The vast amounts of money pouring into Republican coffers, some of them very far right wing, cruel and repressive and reactionary, some racist, frightens me, as does the sense that rich people are punishing Obama because he has spoken up for workers and other "little people" and for the environment.
- Sophia
September 5, 2012 at 12:51pm
"In the Democratic narrative, by contrast, it’s the rich taking advantage of everybody else—and seeking to destroy public services, like Social Security or public schools, on which the vast majority of Americans rely. That is why the Democrats keep hammering away at Bain Capital, Romney’s tax returns, and the draconian implications of the Romney-Ryan budget proposals." There's a real false equivalence in you piece, JC, and a real disconnect between your first and second sentences in the passage above. Dems hammer Romney on Bain, taxes and his budget proposals specifically to target Romney (and now Ryan) on both personal and policy grounds. Those attacks steer well clear of attacking the wealthy in general or even going after the super-wealthy such as Mitt. More generally, I don't see any Dem statements or positions decrying wealth, attacking all the wealthy as being selfish, tax-dodging cheats. Rather, they go out of their way to praise success of all kinds, including making a lot of money. They just want to make sure everyone pays their fair share and that the public is aware of the budget and policy implications of inadequately taxing the rich. You're an astute and fair journalist, but in this post you unintentionally seem to echo some Fox talking points.
- Thunderroad
September 5, 2012 at 1:32pm
I'm with Cohn. Both parties are trying to drive exactly the wedges he describes. Just because lefties can't hear the dog whistles against "the rich" doesn't mean lots of other people, most especially the rich, do. Actually, it will probably be an effective strategy. After all there's more of us.
- Robert Powell
September 5, 2012 at 3:56pm