a question for those who are against the "priviledged" holding office.

[bhunt70]

*I have nothing against any of the candidates, I just feel this is a flaw that needs to be pointed out.

I understand people are upset that a "priviledged" person may get the democratic nomination (as posited in another thread), instead wishing that a self made man would hold some sort of virtue over him.

What if I, a lower middle class person with one income for 2 people, some how make it big and financially etc. run for office, win on self made money etc basing it on knowing where people "come from".

Since I would be a self made man, would that preclude my son or daughter, from being a good advocate for the people?

Seriously, I don't know how far Kerry or Dean's money go, and I don't care. It just seems disengenuous to think that because Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton or Clark (who I support), made their money themselves that they are better.

If DU is around when my child is of voting age, I would hate to be reading a thread over their shoulder stating that John Edwards Jr, is just a priviledged brat who just skated by because of his fathers money (or his fathers presidency).

[Burma Jones]

1. I give you Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Or Teddy for that matter. as sterling examples of American noblesse oblige that didn't stink to high heaven.

[Taeger]

6. They need an experience that ...

In general, I would prefer someone who raised himself from meager beginings. But in the case of those born wealthy, they need an experience that attaches them to common folk in a real way:

FDR: FDR was a pompous but hole until he was stricken with polio. Franklin started a "spa" for polio survivors out of his riches. There, he gained an appreciation for the common plight of common people.

Kerry: Kerry volunteered for Vietnam. Any rich person who volunteers and serves in Vietnam HAS to have a life changing experience.


Bush: A "astro-turf" Texan. He has ZERO connection to common folk beyond being intellectually deficient.

[Burma Jones]

8. I agree wholeheartedly

Teddy Roosevelt also had experiences to attach him.


At least George the First was in WWII, as was JFK. I suppose you could go back to the Adams family....

George Washington was an Aristocrat too, but that's going back a little too far I think.

[AP]

15. Kerry and Gore volunteered for Vietnam so they could start

writing life stories about themselves that would lead to the White House.

That's an option many people don't have, and don't even consider.

I had wealthy friends growing up who'd say, "don't take a picture of me doing this -- I'm going to run for office some day."

[spooky3]

27. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that common folk are

intellectually deficient.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. If John Edwards Jr is a priviledged brat

who skated by because of his father's money, why should we vote for him?

[bhunt70]

3. Clarification - I meant that it was the perception held of him.

It seems very easy to look at someone as only an extension of their money or lack thereof.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. those poor trust funders!

All those hard working trust funders never get a break do they? Everyone is always misjudging them because of their wealth. The unfair treatment of the idle rich in American is one of our biggest problems :eyes:

[mhr]

4. It's A Question Of Values

Do you want someone in the White House that represents:

the wealthy,
the middle class, or
the poor?

This can be inferred by the background of the person seeking office.

It is very hard for one to overcome their background and all the attendant bias that accompanies how one was raised.

There are a few exceptions like FDR. This is very rare though. GW is an accurate reflection of his heritage:

arrogant,
insensitive, and
aloof.

He will never be able to relate to those less fortunate.

[bhunt70]

7. ...

I personally want someone who represents me, a lower middle class native american guy, but I doubt we will get that.

Seriously, JFK was the epitomy of priviledge.

I just think it is a divisive measure to judge someone on their monetary worth but that wasn't my point. The point is, everyone had to start somewhere, and to begrudge them based on something like whether their dad made a bundle on the stock market or something of the sort is kinda odd to me.

Whats is more odd though is I have a very big Us vs Them issue with those who are rich because like you said I don't feel like they relate to me.

[Dookus]

9. can it really be inferred?

Nixon and Reagan were from humble origins. FDR, TR, JFK were from not-so-humble origins.

I'm not sure what exactly can be inferred from a candidate's financial background. Seems to me it's a factor that doesn't really correlate with any particular policy position.

[JanMichael]

5. Mainly because I oppose the idea of Plutocratic rule. It feeds itself.

http://www.irs.princeton.edu/krueger/intergen2.htm

GRAPHIC: Chart: "Like Parent, Like Child"

Recent studies find that there is less income mobility from one generation to another than previously believed.



PARENTS INCOME QUINTILE: Top 20%

CHANCE OF CHILDREN ATTAINING EACH INCOME LEVEL

Top quintile: 42.3 %

Middle quintile: 16.5

Bottom quintile: 6.3



PARENTS INCOME QUINTILE: Middle 20%

CHANCE OF CHILDREN ATTAINING EACH INCOME LEVEL

Top quintile: 15.3

Middle quintile: 25.0

Bottom quintile: 17.3



PARENTS INCOME QUINTILE: Bottom 20%

CHANCE OF CHILDREN ATTAINING EACH INCOME LEVEL

Top quintile: 7.3

Middle quintile: 18.4

Bottom quintile: 37.3
====================================

I hope that answers your question.

[Mairead]

10. There seems to be an unspoken assumption here that unless

someone is obviously oppressing working people, they're on our side!

There were people during slavery days that took good care of their enslaved workers, too -- but would never have considered freeing them. So what does that tell us? I think it tells us that they were smarter than most and realised that happy slaves work harder and are less troublesome.

Was FDR really 'on our side', or was he, too, just a good bit smarter than his wealthy and privileged peers, able to see that turning out the army whenever people got uppity was not a viable long-term solution to the growing social unrest (since soldiers come from the working class, too)?

I don't think the answer is obvious at all.

Yes, there have been members of the owning class who have gone far beyond any possible self-interest in their relationship to workers. Those who risked prison, for example, and the loss of all their property to educate their enslaved workers, or the owners today who freely share their ownership with their employees.

I think we have to give those people full marks for truly being on our side. But they've always been few, and far between. Was FDR really among them?

[corporatewhore]

11. A story of personal experience

I went to a private school for three years because i had a full scholarship i went to school with stupid rich kids some of them were like yeah i know about the problems of the working class but they truly didnt know becuase they didnt live day to day with the problems.how could they know what it was like when it was such a blow to family income when a big thing went wrong with the family car that was older than the car they were given by mommy and daddy

[AP]

16. I think Dean would have had a completely different education

plan if had had to EVER take out a loan for ANYTHIGN (tuition, mortgage) and if his family didn't make their money off of Wall Street.

[corporatewhore]

17. I am a kucinich supporter

[AP]

20. It's not relevant to the point I'm making.

I'm talking about the nexus of experience/biography and policy, and that they create a logical nexus of who the candidate is.

I was using Dean's education program as a good example.

[corporatewhore]

22. just been alittle jumpy lately hanging out here

[corporatewhore]

12. another point i think kerry would know on the surface but really woulndt

know what happens on a personal level when a factory moves over seas as evidence of his vote for nafta/wto permanent trade relations w/china

[AP]

13. If Gandhi had been a murderer and rapist who served his time

and wanted to run for president, I would say, Gandhi, you're a great man, and you'd do great things, and you've paid your debt to society, but you're probably not the right symbol for America right now.

What we're talking about is partly the power of symbols. I think Edwards is a powerful symbol of what needs to be fixed in America.

Furthermore, biography and experience are part of a coherent logic about a candidate. I grant that candidates like Nixon and Reagan and DeLay have biographies which probably obfuscated what they were really about, and the Kennedys and FDR had biographies that belied what they believed in (yet, still had life experiences that explained why they weren't class loyalists).

Think of the power of a candidate who has the complete, logical total nexus of policy, experience and biography.

And why are we talking about the children of these candidates? That's my whole point: inheritied privilege is a bad example. It's just outrageous that this issue is framed in terms of, "Edwards is a decent guy, so shouldn't his three kids be decent politicians some day?" Ugh. That argument just makes me sick to my stomach.

[AP]

14. Incidentally, one of Lincoln's sons was a railroad lawyer who

made a ton of money, which he apparently cared more about than he cared about progressive politics, so that would be an example of a good president's son not being worthy of my vote.

[Mairead]

21. The insulation of privilege is one of the biggest arguments for

not being able to pass more than a minor amount of wealth from one generation to the next. People who grow up privileged --even the ordinary, middle-class privilege that Edwards grew up with-- are insulated from the realities of classism. Those who grow up with the privilege of wealth, the privilege of knowing that barring some catastrophe they'll never need to work a day in their lives...they might as well be living on Mars for all their connection to the world the rest of us inhabit.

[AP]

23. I'm not sure I'd even say the Edwards grew up with ordinary

middle class privilege. He had to leave one school because of money, graduate from another in three years because of money, and decline admission to a third because of money.

How many middle class white Americans growing up in the 60s and early 70s had to limit their horizons because of finances? Edwards was one of them.

[Mairead]

26. How much privilege did you enjoy? (not a snarky question)

I ask because Edwards's saga seems quite privileged to me, the child of a home devastated by illness who grew up on the dole (thank Goddess for the safety net!) and finally earned a university degree at age 37 in night school. And, of course, even I was vastly privileged compared to my age peers forced to leave school at 15 and who spent their working lives scrubbing office floors, making beds in a hotel, or waitressing in a greasy spoon, existing hand-to-mouth with no hope for a better tomorrow.

[AP]

31. That sounds like it would have been Edwards's life if his

parents got sick.

Clearly, Edwards got lucky by doing exactly what he was good at, and working hard in school and in his career. But privileged? I'm not sure. I'm not sure which privilege he benefitted from.

He also got lucky by graduating into the tail end of the Golden Age of economic progress (thanks to FDR - the 50s to mid 70s). Had Edwards been born when you were, he might have not have even had the chances he had by being 13 years older than you are. His father might not have had a job, and his mother might not have been able to get that job at the post office which gave his family decent, cheap health care. (Today, they're trying to privatize the post office and his father's job would have moved to the Phillipines.)

[Mairead]

35. "I'm not sure which privilege he benefitted from"

Oh, goodness, he benefitted from many! Skin-color privilege: he's White. Sex-membership privilege: he's male. Family-origin privilege: his ancestors were from Britain. Citizenship privilege: US. Intact-home privilege. Parental-background privilege: they had the emotional wherewithal to be good parents to him. World-time privilege: born into US postwar hegemony. Location privilege: not born on top of one of the NC mountains. Intelligence privilege: well-above-average. Personal-health privilege: robust and not missing any important functionality. ...the list is nearly endless.

When the worst that happens is that you have to change your higher-ed plans because you haven't quite got the money to implement your first choice, man, you're DRIPPING with privilege!

(He's 13 years younger, btw. I was born during the Battle of Britain, though I'm sure the two events weren't connected :))

[AP]

39. Find me a candidate less privileged who stand for the same things

and they'll be the first I look to.

I love Ruth Ann Minner and Debbie Stabenow. They're not running.

Edwards is.

I love Kucinich too, but I think Edwards, of the two, is the one with a real chance of winning.

[Mairead]

41. Well, Kucinich for one!

He had several fewer privileges, notably social class, parental wellbeing, and physical health. And he doesn't appear to have a 'moneymaking intelligence', if such a thing exists (opinion is divided).

As to who has the better chance of winning...it's the same number of votes either way.

[H2O Man]

18. I have nothing against rich folks...

...but it's not supposed to be ONLY rich folks. That's all. And today, my friend, if you are not rich, you simply have NO chance, no matter how smart you are, how honest your motives, how sincere your desires, how correct your plans ... because today , political power is entirely defined by $$$! Thus, a greedy, lying, evil snake with money will rule, to the exclusion of that decent middle- or lower-economic class person. Your chances are thus very small, and it shows in that you are not even familiar enough with privilege to spell the word correctly ... just what you think it sounds like!

[Dookus]

24. well let's see if it's only rich folk....

and by rich and not rich here, I'm talking about origins, not self-made fortunes:

Bush II: Rich
Clinton: Not Rich
Bush I: Rich
Reagan: Rich
Carter: Not Rich
Ford: Not Rich
Nixon: Not Rich
Johnson: Not Rich
Kennedy: Rich
Eisenhower: Not Rich
Truman: Not Rich
FDR: Rich


So we have 7 not rich, 5 rich out of our last 12 presidents. Two of the Rich ones were liberal heros.

[AP]

25. And of the two rich liberal heros, one was called a class traitor

and the other was an outsider due to his religion, and who was shot probably because he wanted to flow power down to people who worked for a living and had the charisma to get that project done.

Furthermor, were there better options than those two? No. Is there a better option today? Yes.

[H2O Man]

29. Of the past twelve...

...an even dozen were wealthy when they became president. The topic was about wealth and political power. Your point merely reinforces mine: those people that you believe started out from more humble positions were well-to-do when they took the office of the president. Truth is, not one would have possibly accessed the power without the money. There is no serious argument that disputes that fact. Nor is it possible to debate that this lowers the quality of our present political process. Let me give you something to compare it to: this country's "Founding Fathers" took a lot of ideas from the Haudenosaunee, or Iroquois Confederacy. But in native society, the leaders were the ones who had the least. If food was scarce, the children and elders ate first. The mark of a good leader was one who put others' needs first. Children were taught to think for themselves, and act for others. If there was a "war," the leaders led the fight. Now, tell me again about wealthy and self-made democrats?

[Dookus]

30. Isn't it possible

that people who are qualified to be president tend to be successful at other endeavors?

And Bill Clinton himself never made much money prior to ending his presidency. His wife made some money, though.

[H2O Man]

34. Success at other endeavors...

...might not equal wealth. Do not misunderstand me -- I believe in free enterprise, and am happy that my family lives at a standard far higher than most people throughout human history. But! Why is it that we are faced with SO MANY serious problems today? Why is it that in the western world, human beings have obtained a technological ability that is so far beyond our "success at endeavors of being GOOD" that we threaten to destroy the planet? Why? Because in America it has always been accepted that a person may possess great knowledge that leds to that wealth & power we discussed, without ever considering their LEVEL OF BEING!!! Here, in this nation, it is acceptable that a man (or woman!) may be a lawyer, a politician, a doctor, or a president - and at the same time it is fashionable for that same man to be a liar, a theif, a racist, a petty, cowardly mean, envious, vain and malicious SNAKE! Americans place far too much value on a person's wealth and power, and very little on their level of being. I agree that LEADERS , for lack of a better word, tend to do well at other ventures, too ... but never mistake success at business as the mark of a great leader. The Bush family has great wealth, and can BUY the presidency for the runt of their litter. Does that make sense?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

42. Cheney is "successful at other endeavors"

So are the rest of the corporate crooks who make their money from goverment corporate welfare. Are these the kind of people we want running our government? I don't think so.

[Dookus]

43. Did I ever assert any such thing?

I merely pointed out that 7 of the last 12 presidents have come from humble origins. Nothing more, nothing less.

[H2O Man]

44. Our error.

Sorry. My friend WhoCountsTheVotes and I thought that you were the Dookus who asked, "Isn't it possible that people who are qualified to be president tend to be successful at other endeavors?" But we accept on face value your more recent claim that you are not. You must be the Dookus who "merely pointed out" that 7 of the past dozen presidents came from humble oranges. It might well be said that two of the 12 did: Clinton and LBJ. Considering the factual history of the Johnson family, we're down to one. But that doesn't make your first point any less valid: a poor person can become wealthy, and a person born to humble circumstance can actually become president. But it doesn't change the fact that a poor person can not become president until (s)he becomes wealthy, and that because wealth is the #1 factor in POWER in this culture, it opens the doors to snakes and cheneys becoming powerful far more often than honest and decent people. Oh, I'm sorry : you aren't the Dookus who made the comment about those "other endeavors"! Or are you?

[Dookus]

45. No, of course I was the dookus

but that was in response to a particular question separate from the original post. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

And yes, very few poor people run for president. That's been true since the founding of the republic.

[H2O Man]

46. No misunderstanding at all.

You appear to be one of the more insightful people on here... I recognize quite a few names, and yours' happens to be a part of what my father used to call one of my brothers. I have a respect for your imput on here. If anything, I'm being slightly-to-moderately obnoxious .... yesterday was the funeral of one of my closest friends and political co-workers. We were about the same age, and were born in the same town. I was born in the poorest neighborhood, he in the richest. Despite his families' wealth, and a very good education, he choose to live as a poor person. He was a humble, kind, and gentle man, who was adopted into a loose-knit Native community that I am part of. He died of a heart attack, sitting in his car outside of a doctor's office in a near-by city. He was not found for over 26 hours. That's this culture, my friend: a good man's life and death go un-noticed. In Native society, he holds a place of honor. Perhaps when I think of him, and compare his accomplishments with the "self-made" and other wealthy class-mates we had, I am overly sensitive to the idea of power and leadership being defined by wealth.

[JVS]

47. I didn't know Reagan was brought up rich.

I thought he made his money in hollywood

[dsc]

28. It isn't an accident that the most liberal Senators are some . . .

of the richest. Until we fix the campaign finance system money will be a huge factor. If it is other people's money, the person is going to often be beholden. If it is their own they are going to be rich. I'll take rich over beholden in many cases. Would it be better if just anyone could run, yes. But if, as is now the case, my choices are between rich people who can tell other rich folks to screw themselves or not so rich people who can't, I'll choose the first.

[AP]

32. Who? Wellstone, who couldn't even afford a suit. Or Feingold who,

when a Republican Senator overheard what his salary was the year before he got elected, replied "I've spent more than that in a weekend on women and booze!"

And this isn't just a question about how much money you have in the bank. It's about how you experienced America and how that forms you opinions about what's wrong and right about it.

[dsc]

33. Wellstone is a fluke

and Wisconsin has a tradition of people not spending huge money on campaigns. BTW Feingold is not that liberal, he voted for Ashcroft to name one example. Wellstone was an amazing political talent who ran against a lousy Senator. He also had geniuses working for him. Once in office, his skill carried him. It should be noted Feingld would be ex Senator Feingold but for Tammy Baldwin and her historic race in 1998. His entire margin came from the extra turnout her race brought. In comparison both Boxer and Corozine are much more liberal than he.

[AP]

38. We could use more exceptions like Wellstone.

And Huey Long.

Corzine and Boxer have the luxury of being liberal. It's nice to have Democrats who have real conviction and go out on a limb to be liberal.

[dsc]

40. Don't get me wrong

He wasn't a fluke in a bad way but he was a fluke. We can't count on gifted amatures with no money getting teamed up with tactical geniuses. And then have them run against dreadful opponents. That doesn't happen every day.

[genius]

36. I like Kerry. I don't like the system that makes is almost impossible

for someone of modest means to become President. It needs to be fixed.

[Terwilliger]

37. I need to see evidence that you're a socialist

You can make money left and right, but if you're not giving much away, then you like the money too much.

It also goes back to the class struggle. What about that person who knew where he was coming from and built himself up to be rich and secure. Why do his kids get a pass? What have they done? He made the money,...what are they doing with it?