Will the 2012 election be about "Class Warfare"?

[milhouse24]

It seems that there is a strong class warfare movement with the 99% wall street protesters and the various Obama legislation proposals.  Obama and Biden have talked a lot about "fairness between the rich and the poor" and Obama plans on increasing taxes for the wealthy with the bush tax cut expiration. 

Obama has often attacked corporations and big businesses.  His line of “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen” is indicative of a distrust of corporations and entrepreneurs. 

Obama is clearly drawing a distinction between himself as a candidate for the working poor, and Romney as the candidate for corporate fat cats. 

But by taking such caustic class warfare stances, will Obama turn-off many middle-class and upper-middle class voters who work in corporations and as struggling small business owners? 

Will the 2012 election be driven by Class Warfare issues and will it benefit Obama or Romney?

[Chareth Cutestory]

Haha I hope this happens. Obama would be caught in his tracks worse than Romney. He has been unfathomably generous to the financial industry and Romney is...well, duh. I don't think there's a chance in hell either campaign would pursue this as a theme for reasonable fear it could spark a realization among the peons that they're being jerked around like the thralls they have become in our corporatist economy and political system.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure the American public can be knocked out of its trans even with two huge campaign posters smacking it in the face constantly. Maybe Romney could find some of the most ironic political success in charging that Obama has it out for a certain socio-economic "class".

[Progressive Realist]

Hackish post is hackish.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Please please PLEASE make this election about class warfare.

I noticed in the 2008 campaign that Obama's numbers improved quite a bit when he said to "spread the wealth" and McCain attacked him for it.

We all wish Obama would do more for the 99%, but at least the "spread the wealth" talk highlights how much worse the Republicans are.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Obama has often attacked corporations and big businesses.  His line of “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen” is indicative of a distrust of corporations and entrepreneurs.

Also, I don't think this was about distrust. I think this was an issue of millionaire industrialists' hurt feelings.

[milhouse24]

Hackish post is hackish.

Should I replace the words "Class Warfare" with Populism? 

Obama is clearly going after corporations and the wealthy.  Its about "fairness" 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course not. If Obama ever got the idea of actually standing up to Wall Street, he would immediately fire William Daley.

[pbrower2a]

The Hard Right has already pushed this as a "class warfare" election with the assumption that workers who have loyalty to bosses and owners and fear of losing their jobs will vote as they are told even if they are voting against their economic interests (like privatizing Social Security and Medicare, destroying the safety nets, and tax shifts from the super-rich to everyone else). A 30% pay cut is better than being fired. 

[RogueBeaver]

No, it will be a referendum on Obama's economic record.

[pbrower2a]

No, it will be a referendum on Obama's economic record.

FDR won big after four years of solid growth following an even nastier economic meltdown for which pols of the GOP were still largely held culpable. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, it will be a referendum on Obama's economic record.

FDR won big after four years of solid growth following an even nastier economic meltdown for which pols of the GOP were still largely held culpable. 

Obama is definitely no FDR.

[pbrower2a]

No, it will be a referendum on Obama's economic record.

FDR won big after four years of solid growth following an even nastier economic meltdown for which pols of the GOP were still largely held culpable.  

Obama is definitely no FDR.

Sure. He's probably more like Truman. Nobody expects him to win all but 10 or so electoral votes. 310 or so electoral votes and winning back the House while holding onto the Senate will be adequate. Such would be Truman 1948.

Economic conditions are much better than they were in 1936. The rules for attaching an unemployment rate to votes against the President may not be the same now as they were even eight years ago.   

[Progressive Realist]

No, it will be a referendum on Obama's economic record.

FDR won big after four years of solid growth following an even nastier economic meltdown for which pols of the GOP were still largely held culpable.  

Obama is definitely no FDR.

Sure. He's probably more like Truman. Nobody expects him to win all but 10 or so electoral votes. 310 or so electoral votes and winning back the House while holding onto the Senate will be adequate. Such would be Truman 1948.

Economic conditions are much better than they were in 1936. The rules for attaching an unemployment rate to votes against the President may not be the same now as they were even eight years ago.   

Sure, maybe on the surface. But look at the growth of the poverty rate. Look how many people are dangerously close to falling into poverty.

Of course, that's not to say that Obama is to blame for that.

[cope1989]

Please, the Republicans have been pushing the nastiest kind of class warfare for years

[stegosaurus]

"Class Warfare" is a derogatory term used by conservatives to describe liberal economic policies. If this election came down to "class warfare" it would mean that Mitt Romney magically transformed into a capable politician who successfully got the better of Barack Obama (campaign edition). Unlikely to happen, to put it mildly.

This election will be about a mediocre President's mediocre economy, and how the half-baked campaign of his opponent let him waltz into a second term in spite of it.

[Sibboleth]

What decade do you people think you live in? Or perhaps the problem is geographic rather than temporal, in which case, what country do you think you live in? Either way, not the United States of 2012.

[milhouse24]

I think Obama's statement does indicate distrust, arrogance, and perhaps even a willfull ignorance on what it takes to succeed in business, as a business owner or business founder.  If Obama truly believes that government is an equal 50/50 partner in successful companies by building roads, infrastructure, etc. then wouldn't every American citizen be rich and successful becuase we have equal access to roads and infrastructure.  I think Obama does not fundamentally understand what it takes to build a successful business or even want to understand.  He seems to have outright hostility and anger towards corporations and "the man in power."  He's never worked in a business role, and he's only worked on the peripheral as a lawyer who fights corporations and other perceived societal injustices that corporations cause. 

The quote just sounds extremely condescending to anyone working in the private sector, and over emphasizes the role of government.  There's a reason many companies succeed, and it usually has to do with hard work, stress, better management, leadership, and intelligence.  Its certainly not easy.  But perhaps Obama wants to stress the importance of Government bailouts, which did help companies survive, at the expense of the taxpayers.   But in the end, I think Obama's goal is to negate and destroy the power of corporations, and give government a stronger role in American society. 

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help … Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen,"

[Bandit3 the Worker]

He seems to have outright hostility and anger towards corporations and "the man in power."

Good for him.

[opebo]

What decade do you people think you live in? Or perhaps the problem is geographic rather than temporal, in which case, what country do you think you live in? Either way, not the United States of 2012.

I think what the original poster meant by 'will the 2012 election be about Class Warfare?' was in fact 'would inequality be mentioned at all during the campaign?'.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think what the original poster meant by 'will the 2012 election be about Class Warfare?' was in fact 'would inequality be mentioned at all during the campaign?'.

I will be very disappointed if the debate moderators don't bring it up. Not surprised, but disappointed.

That the media has completely ignored for so long what has been the most pressing economic issue in America for the past 30 years is proof of the media's intent to manipulate and shirk its job.

[opebo]

That the media has completely ignored for so long what has been the most pressing economic issue in America for the past 30 years is proof of the media's intent to manipulate and shirk its job.

Oh I don't know, they work for the owners, Bandit - their job is to deceive the people into abject submission.

[milhouse24]

There's a difference between fighting poverty, supporting populism, union rights, and the working middle class. 

And then their is some people like the 99% saying  that corporations are evil.  The environmentalists hate corporations as well. 

But then there are some people that seem to hate entrepreneurship and pure capitalism.  Obama seems to be blaming capitalism which allows for some people to get rich, for ignoring the poor and not spreading the wealth to the "poor people who actually built the profitable companies."  Obama wants the poor to receive handouts and benefits from these greedy corporations. 

Obama doesn't seem to realize that middle class workers want to climb up.  They don't want to dwell on blaming the rich for their misfortunes.  Its a thin line between capitalism and socialism, and I think Obama clearly states that he supports socialist policies and socialist activism.  Its within his duties to pass legislation for activist government programs, but he should at least be honest and clear to the public that he supports socialist programs like health care. 

[opebo]

...middle class workers want to climb up.  They don't want to dwell on blaming the rich for their misfortunes. 

Precisely - this is the trap in which they are caught.  A perfect deception which feeds on their desperate human emotions, offering them a false hope and blinding them to the fact that the rich are to blame for their position.

[WhyteRain]

Big government protects big fortunes. 
Always has and always will.

If you want to do an experiment, look for the richest families in the U.S. for 1812, 1912 and today.

Hardly any of the wealthiest of 1812 were still rich in 1912 (after 100 years of small government), but nearly all the wealthiest of 1912 are still rich today.

[pbrower2a]

There's a difference between fighting poverty, supporting populism, union rights, and the working middle class. 

Mass poverty has been the bane of every political virtue. it creates desperation and fear. 

And then their is some people like the 99% saying  that corporations are evil.  The environmentalists hate corporations as well. 

I'm sure that environmentalists prefer the insurance industry to the lumber industry. 

But then there are some people that seem to hate entrepreneurship and pure capitalism.  Obama seems to be blaming capitalism which allows for some people to get rich, for ignoring the poor and not spreading the wealth to the "poor people who actually built the profitable companies."  Obama wants the poor to receive handouts and benefits from these greedy corporations. 

We have cartels with bureaucratic elites. Such is pathological capitalism, possibly the end stage of a quiescent era. Tycoons have always taken their share while creating prosperity, but bureaucratic elites within giant corporations seem to be enriching themselves at the cost of subordinates and small-scale competitors. The sort of top-down decision-making in giant corporations and the tendency toward concentration of industry exists to make impossible the sort of pure entrepreneurialism that is small business.

Small business made America a great industrial power. Big business came later as a rule. Of course it is easy to see cash cows as entities to milk and people on Easy Street as easy to tax -- especially when economic conditions are getting harder.  That's how countries with economies based upon oil extraction operate.  The oil revenue is easy money that creates relatively few jobs.     

Obama doesn't seem to realize that middle class workers want to climb up.  They don't want to dwell on blaming the rich for their misfortunes.  Its a thin line between capitalism and socialism, and I think Obama clearly states that he supports socialist policies and socialist activism.  Its within his duties to pass legislation for activist government programs, but he should at least be honest and clear to the public that he supports socialist programs like health care. 

Middle-class workers also don't want to be consigned to poverty, something that our economic elites now do. If there is a thin line between capitalism and 'socialism' then there is a similarly-thin line between capitalist plutocracy and a new feudalism that makes huge demands upon workers while offering no economic security.

The United States is the only advanced-industrial country with a profits-first system of medical care as well as a for-profit bureaucracy to administer health care.