Chart: The Economist
Republicans used to think this was a problem.
For much of the Obama era, issues such as income inequality have been deemed largely off limits by the right. The problem, according to many conservatives, isn't the growing gap between rich and poor, or the emergence of a new Gilded Age, but rather, talking about these issues in public. Maybe, the argument goes, if we ignore the societal dilemma, it'll just go away.
But it wasn't too terribly long ago that Republicans felt this was at least a problem worth considering. Our pal James Carter flagged a fascinating item from 2002, written by one of the Republican presidential candidates for an academic journal.
[T]oday, growing disparity between the rich and poor is one of the critical social dilemmas we face in the 21st century. I believe that the growing wealth gap is one of the key reasons for this increasing disparity.
Despite a strong economy through the 1990s, the gap between the rich and the poor expanded. Among Americans who reach age seventy, the top ten percent own more wealth than the bottom ninety percent. How do we address this inequity? [...]
Initiatives that encourage individual wealth creation are imperative to closing the gap between the rich and the poor. I believe the government can play a role in helping many Americans who struggle to enter the economic mainstream.
The same article went on to note that while "the net worth of the typical family has risen substantially in recent years, it has actually dropped substantially for low-income families.... Until recently, the booming American economy had delivered significant income gains to the nation's upper-income earners, leaving lower-income workers on the sidelines."
The author was then-Sen. Rick Santorum, in a piece for the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy.
It's only fair to note that Santorum's preferred prescription was not at all progressive. The Republican's focus was on addressing inequality by expanding "wealth creation" -- we would see more income mobility, for example, if working families had their own retirement investment accounts, replacing Social Security.
But what's striking about the Santorum piece is the way in which it helps document the rhetorical transition.
In 2012, the Republican line is that discussions about economic fairness, if they're to exist at all, should be forced into "quiet rooms," where questions can be whispered. In 2002, leading Republicans -- Santorum was the third highest-ranking GOP senator at the time -- were entirely comfortable noting the "growing disparity between the rich and poor," exploring solutions to close the gap, and even envisioning a role for government action.
Santorum's piece 10 years ago wasn't seen as scandalous; it was seen as routine. It's only now that the Republican mainstream sees the need to narrow the public conversation, declaring some topics verboten. Indeed, if President Obama were to declare today that the "growing disparity between the rich and poor is one of the critical social dilemmas we face in the 21st century," nearly all of the leading GOP voices would be quick to condemn such talk as inherently "divisive," promoting "envy," and fomenting class conflict.
What a difference a decade makes.
(Chart: The Economist)
Leave a Comment:
and unfortunately the saying is true..." the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." i wonder how Romney or Santorum would act if they were went hungry today, or got their electricity turned off in their home, or better yet if they didn't have a home to go home to. Republicans need to talk about the economy, send the contraception talk to the quiet room.
that wont get them votes from the fox news audiences
Shame on Rick Santorum: writing an article for an education journal...what a snob! And a hypocrite! And a flip-flopper! The Republican trifecta!
The Republican Party has a long tradition of trying to cut off discussion of any topic in which it doesn't think it holds a winning hand. Remember how, in 2003, criticizing the Iraq invasion was "unpatriotic" and "treason"? Or how, in 2004-5, when Pres. Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, cries of "foul" greeted criticism of the idea (until, that is, voters shouted back "No way!" at the GOP)? Now it is economic inquality they don't think anyone should discuss in public because it's divisive or socialist or something that reveals the party's weakness in a key issue.
This is excellent proof that Republicans have run out of ideas, any ideas, other than cutting taxes as the basis for running candidates for any office - state or federal. And we've seen what happens when tax cuts become the be all and end all of government policy: Needed help isn't available to people who are in bad straits.
In so many ways, this is so bad for the country.
I am astounded at how the Republican Party cuts off it nose to spite its face. Over the last 20 years they have proposed some decent ideas and concepts (Obama himself has said that Democrats aren't the only ones with good ideas). Yet whenever the Dems agree to good Republican ideas, the Republicans turn against their own ideas, seemingly on the basis of "If the Democrats like it, we must oppose it!"
Case in Point - the Affordable Care Act (yes, Obamacare). Based largely on Romney's plan for Massachusetts, but not solely. In committee, the Republicans made 73 proposals. When the Dems reviewed them and said "okay, we'll agree to your 73 proposals," the Republican committee leader was so confounded he didn't know what to say. He eventually said "Well, we have some other stuff we want to think about."
Now, even though the ACA contains MANY Republican proposals, they want the country to think that it was Obama who "pushed this unconstitutional legislation down everyone's throat." The fact is, they do not want Obama to get any credit for accomplishing something for the good of the country. So much so, that they forget their own contribution to that very legislation.
And this is only one of many, many examples, like the story above. Hypocrites, indeed.
Yup. The GOP up and died on us. Walking around still, though, as zombies who want to feast on brains: the living dead.
just think where we would be right now if Bush had gotten his way and the SS had been turned over to wall street,some of us would be sleeping under a dam bridge somewhere till they came and ran us off! I mean this litterally !
I think at the time wealth disparity was used, as you pointed out, to advance the idea that wealth creation would be available to everyone through the financial markets. The rich are wealthy because of investment opportunity, and we should allow people to be able to do the same by eliminating SS and employee pensions and the fabulous returns in the stock market would create more wealth and security than a guaranteed government program. The market in the 90's made a lot of people wealthy, but as we know, most people cannot weather the ups and downs. The Republicans can't make the same argument today, but they still want to get rid of the same programs.
I would honestly love to see Obama and any number of other Democrats cribbing the exact speeches of their Republican opponents. There are lots of them just like this, and it's the kind of stuff that would actually get people's attention when they're attacked for saying the exact same words their opponents recently spoke.
Too bad the chart ends before the Great Recession of 2008. Then we would see some real divergence, I bet.
What would be nice, would be to see a graph since the recession hit on how the recovery has only helped the top 1% as well. The key thing to note in this graph is "after tax income", which clearly points out that the top 1% are not being taxed enough, contrary to the entire GOP argument. As long as the media accepts calling rich people "job creators" without batting an eyelash, and allows the GOP to call "small business" any business that is owned by an individual or family (rather than the actual size of it) without putting out a clarification on their definition; we are doomed to be propagandized more and more by the wealthy who can afford to blanket the airwaves of TV and radio with misleading and false information in the interest of securing a larger chunk of the fiscal pie for themselves.
I keep saying that if we stopped calling these people 'hypocrites' and call them 'F#(%!n' Liars!' people would get a clearer message and see through this type of deception. Hypocrite is such a soft word compared to 'F#(%!N' LIARS!' If we've learned nothing else from the Repugnant Party, it's that messaging and language are very important tools. Time to use their own weapons against them.
Excellent idea!
Excellent idea!
most of them are like Romney and inherited their wealth and have never had to work at a hard job a day in their lives
Suddenly, Frothy Mixture started obsessing on gay sex.
As the religious right/evangelical fundamentalists have taken over the GOP and republican politics, the view of poor, poverty, and the income gap has changed. The wealthy are viewed as better or more "godly" because god only gives these riches to those who deserve it. The poor are not "godly" and have done something to deserve being poor. Wealth and riches are the true "christian value" and used as a measurement of devotion. The rich and wealthy are portrayed as righteous victims of the greedy poor.
I'm amazed at people on both sides of the political divide who think this result is some kind of unintended consequence. This is exactly what the Republican Party started out to accomplish a little over three decades ago.
You have to give the conservatives credit. They knew what they wanted and how to get it done. It's a shame that so many former Democrats decided to help them. If those people saw their wages and benefits cut, their jobs shipped off to foreign countries, or the retirements ruined--I guess they got what they deserved. It's just a shame that so many other people suffered for their shortsightedness.
And in that ten years, Fox News has taken complete control of what is considered acceptable speech from the right -- both what they are allowed to say and how they are allowed to say it. As someone else said:
Fox News: Paying rich people to get middle class people to blame poor people.
And in 2007, George Bush said this:
Today, Republican identity is wholly and entirely subsumed in hatred of the Other. So they don't know whether they can admit to the sky being blue until they hear the president call it blue, at which point they'll insist that it's orange, just like George Washington and Jesus said.
Steve's "Negotiating with Those Who Oppose Their Own Principles" post from a few years back captured the dynamic quite well.