General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOnly 1-percenters need apply for the job of POTUS.
And we the people willingly agree to those pre-conditions of our servitude (as if they are natural).
Anyone see a problem? And please, spare me the microscopic bellybutton gazing and please take a moment to look at this with a bit more historical perspective than say 20 or 30 years. Okay?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I don't think Harry Truman was a one-percenter. Kennedy was, but he was one of the good ones. Carter wasn't and probably still isn't a one-percenter, and Clinton started out as a poor Arkansas boy but something happened along the way.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)As VP, Truman was so shunned, even by a President who knew he was ill and the nation was at war, that Truman did not learn of the Manhattan Project until after FDR died.
I think Carter was fairly well off when he ran for POTUS. Maybe not a multi multi millionaire like JFK, but maybe a million or three. He most definitely is wealthy now, if only from book sales.
Edited, thanks to Art from Arkansas, who corrected my erroneous statement about Truman's having run as a war time incumbent. Having been made an incumbent by FDR's death, he ran as an incumbent, but the war was over.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Just a few weeks after Truman took office, the war in Europe ended, and 3 months after that, the war in the Pacific was ended, too. So when he ran as an incumbent in 1948, the war(s) had been over for 3 years.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Still, it was a close election for an incumbent. However, there was a third party challenge from segregationists (because Truman had integrated the military).
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)who were imitated 20 years later by George Wallace and his American Independent Party.
merrily
(45,251 posts)said the nation would have been better off if POS Thurmond, who never acknowledged his own mixed race daughter, had been elected POTUS. And then there was bemoaning of the kerfuffle over Lott's comments that caused Lott to resign as Minority Leader, with the claim that poor ole Lott was only being nice to Strom on his 100th birthday. (My ass.)
Sincerely or not, Wallace later said he was wrong. POS Thurmond never did.
How times change. Now David Duke calls for the resignation of House Majority Whip Scalise on the ground that Scalise is not owning his (Scalise's) (alleged?) inner Klansman.
My voting goes back more than 40 yrs.
I do not agree to those pre-conditions of our servitude.
I want to know, what the hell happened to my party.
Oh, fuck the 1%'s.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and turned the world "liberal" into an epithet. His coattails in 1980 took the Senate away from the Democrats for the first time since 1954, and he had enough support from "boll weevils" (aka, "Dixiecrats", "blue dogs", "third wayers" that he might as well have had the House, too. Then, the "liberal" Walter Mondale got trounced in the next election, and the "liberal" Dukakis didn't fare much better in the election after that. So the Democratic apparatchiks decided "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)That was wrong. But convenient cover for Wall Street and the Corporations.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Though the emphasis now seems to be morphing to, "The only alternative to total gridlock, which Americans reject, is for Democrats to go even further right." (My words, not a direct quote from anyone.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025769052
Because the defeats in 2014 were so sound that even Third Way realized the "electable" stuff was going to sound ludicrous.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And to paint everyone who was not center right as a "liberal." Now, groups like No Labels are painting traditional Democrats as the left's equivalents of teabaggers. And getting help at DU.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)And yeah, it is really irritating seeing traditional Democrats here being painted as "the left's equivalents of teabaggers".
merrily
(45,251 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)And not in a good way.
BainsBane
(53,041 posts)George Washington, Thomas Jefferson--wealthy slaveholders, the political elite for a capitalist state. That is America; it always has been. America emerged as a liberal republic, the political corollary of capitalism. The presidency has never been an office for the common man. There have been a few exceptions, Andrew Jackson (though wealthy by the time he became president) and Abraham Lincoln most notably. But the fact they were not born wealthy doesn't mean they didn't serve capital.
Yet SCOTUS has ensured the cash nexus of the capitalist state will be naked. The pretense of government of the people by the people is falling away. The mistake you and many others make, however, is to assume that the political reality you observe is new. Its difference is only a matter of degree, and its nature has become more apparent because American capitalism has developed to the point where wage inequality is deepening and capital has become global rather than national. While constructing an ideal past to juxtapose against current exploitation may be common and understandable, it is not accurate. What you believe is a past where government served the people is in fact mythology. America has always been a capitalist state, and the system was never intended to serve the interests of ordinary Americans. In the early republic, only male, while property holders could vote. The vast majority of the population was deliberately excluded from political participation. While the franchise expanded during the first two centuries of the nation, the purpose of the capitalist state has not changed. Its primary function is to serve capital. In the late 18th century, those who wielded that capital were landowners and slaveholders. At the turn of the 20th century they were industrialists. Today they are financiers. The fact that capital is increasingly global, however, has generated a new series of contradictions. What you are witnessing are those new contradictions, but the fundamental nature of the system remains the same.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)no message
MADem
(135,425 posts)all were applied to the process, and votes could be pretty much bought.
Generally speaking, smart people find themselves in positions where they make money. They may not be stinking rich, but they aren't poor, either.
We're unlikely to see a part-time cashier from JC Penny elected to the White House any time soon. We pick people from public life--politicians, many of whom were trained as lawyers (not a minimum wage gig), who are working as Senators or Governors. We occasionally pick people who have served the nation honorably and well in times of war--senior military leaders, like Washington, Grant, or Eisenhower. These aren't foot soldiers, they're general officers. Those jobs also pay fairly well.
People who are worrying about making the rent and paying the light bill before the power gets shut off just aren't viable candidates for the Presidency. They may be nice folks, but they're just not in "the pool" for consideration and odds are, they never will be.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Warpy
(111,317 posts)Honestly, it's getting to the point where we are not choosing presidents, we are choosing which group of lobbyists and power brokers will give them their orders, banking for the Democrats and petroleum/coal for the Republicans.
If it weren't for the social issues, it might be a wash. Well, the social issues and the fact that Republicans have gone completely insane.