Class Warfare Decried Anew

Valdez: Divisive Progs run leftwing limousine into ditch
I won’t attempt a similarly comprehensive exegesis of the term “class war” or “class warfare.” But I will say that I don’t like the term, nor do I like the efforts in some quarters of the progressive community to suggest that we ought to vilify rich people, drawing out class differences in order to persuade the middle class to embrace big policy changes. I’d argue that the class war narrative won’t work because it is divisive and superficial, and I suspect it will backfire for progressives.

The narrative of class warfare serves politicians better than it does a progressive agenda because it divides people. If there is an enemy out there—an “us against them” proposition—politicians can play on that to motivate people to vote in whatever way will neutralize that enemy, regardless of the facts.

Plus, the idea of declaring a class war on the rich on behalf of the poor is superficial. Suggesting that the rich are really out to get us dumbs down the Marxist term—Class Struggle—which is the origin of the term class war. The Marxist expression was an analysis of systemic problem with capitalism that leads to a maldistribution of resources resulting in poverty.

Marxists had hoped to end class struggle by fundamentally transforming the system. Class war language is an attempt to assign blame, rather than fix the system.

The late William Safire, my travel guide for bushwhacking through the undergrowth of the English language, said it well when he wrote that class warfare:
applies political demography to outdated sociology. The divisive Marxist concept of class is social as well as economic, and Americans should never accept its confines. Class is not determined by income alone; richies can be low-class slobs and the genteel down-at-the-heels can be high-class povertarians.
(full story at daily.sightline.org)

Meet the New Freedom

Pork industry lobbyists scrambling ahead of Dept. of Social Justice probe


O-Progs Want Your 401(k), IRA

EuroFascists begin to seize private retirement savings
People’s retirement savings are a convenient source of revenue for governments that don’t want to reduce spending or make privatizations. As most pension schemes in Europe are organised by the state, European ministers of finance have a facilitated access to the savings accumulated there, and it is only logical that they try to get a hold of this money for their own ends. In recent weeks I have noted five such attempts: Three situations concern private personal savings; two others refer to national funds.

The most striking example is Hungary, where last month the government made the citizens an offer they could not refuse. They could either remit their individual retirement savings to the state, or lose the right to the basic state pension (but still have an obligation to pay contributions for it). In this extortionate way, the government wants to gain control over $14bn of individual retirement savings.

The Bulgarian government has come up with a similar idea. $300m of private early retirement savings was supposed to be transferred to the state pension scheme. The government gave way after trade unions protested and finally only about 20% of the original plans were implemented.

RELATED: Europe's 5 most generous pension systems
(full story at csmonitor.com)

Labor-State Surrender?

Worker-Choice looms over Show-Me labor bigs
It looks like Missouri will become the 23rd state to adopt right to work legislation.

Right to work means you don't have to join a union in a private sector job.

Republicans say the lack of labor influence has helped neighboring states grow.

Democrats may not like it, but they don't have the votes to stop it from becoming law.
(from ktts.com)

Progressives Regress

Leftists running out of labels
Uh oh, this is bad news for folks formerly known as "liberals," then as "progressives." Seems Rasmussen Reports finds that "conservative" is the most positively viewed political label, while "liberal" and "progressive" are in the negative.

"Forty-two percent (42%) of Likely U.S. Voters say they view it as a positive if a candidate is described as politically conservative. Twenty-one percent (21%) say it’s a negative description, and 36% rate it somewhere in between the two," Rasmussen said.

Wasn't that long ago that being seen as a progressive was equally as positive as being called a conservative, according to Rasmussen.

"Being described as a progressive, on the other hand, is a positive for 22% of voters and a negative for 34%, with 41% seeing it in between," Rasmussen said.

"But in the previous survey, voters were evenly divided, with 29% saying progressive was a positive description and 28% describing it as a negative.

"This marks a continuing downward trend for progressive which little over three years ago was slightly more popular than conservative."
(from washingtonexaminer.com)

Related video clips:
'Fundamentally transforming the U.S.A.'You would think that they'd be saying 'Thank you'.

Mayberry Takes On 'The Living Constitution'

How Progs tune-out obsolete principles of limited government


Weaker Pelosi Surrenders the Gavel

Threatens return to Speaker's Chair in two years


Ridicule is man's most potent weapon - Saul Alinsky

Bonus links:
Summary of Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'
• More Saul Alinsky stories: here
'Rules for Radicals' at amazon.com

State of Irresponsibility

BigGov unions bank on $3 trillion federal bailout


Future First Couple Shock?

BigGov GOP retreads won't pull this car out of the ditch


BigGov To Consume Insurance Industry

Dean: Because that's where the money is


Fidel, Impeachment, Donna Rice

On this day: January 7
Benito Mussolini and French Foreign Minister Pierre Laval sign the Franco–Italian Agreement (1935)

The U.S. recognizes the new Cuban government of Fidel Castro (1959)

President Jimmy Carter authorizes legislation giving $1.5 billion in loans to bail out the Chrysler Corporation (1980)

The impeachment of President Bill Clinton begins (1999)

President Barack Obama meets with former President Bill Clinton at the White House (2010)

b: Heinrich von Stephan (1831), Orval Faubus (1910), Donna Rice (1958); d: Hirohito (1994)

Community Organizing for the New Progressive Era
Related Posts with Thumbnails