Playing the Class Card

As long as Hillary Clinton, and now Gloria Steinem, has chosen to play the women's card against the race card, let me throw in a third one: the class card. Clinton claimed in the New Hampshire primary debate that she is the unmistakable agent for change because she is a woman and her election as president would send a strong signal of a new day aborning to America and the rest of the world. It is hoped that it would be a more progressive message than the one sent by Margaret Thatcher's ascent in England.

Steinem put a finer point on the argument in her New York Times commentary, published Tuesday, New Hampshire's primary election day, arguing that women get wonderfully more "radical" as they age, and therefore older women are more inclined to vote for Clinton, Steinem's preferred candidate, as opposed to Barack Obama, whom younger women went for in Iowa. Maybe those younger women were more worried about how to pay off college loans or swelling mortgage obligations than gender identity.

What is radical about voting for a corporate lawyer who, in defense of her Arkansas savings and loan shenanigans, once said you can't be a lawyer without working for banks? Steinem boasts of Clinton's "unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House" without referencing the Clinton White House's giveaways to corporate America at the expense of poor and working Americans, the majority of them being women. Sen. Clinton's key election operative, Mark Penn, was the other half of the Dick Morris team that recast populist Bill Clinton as the master of triangulation.

I am not trying to play the class card here by claiming that because Obama grew up black and middle-class he will therefore inevitably be that rare politician who remembers where he or she came from. Bill Clinton, who came from a poor family, disproved the notion about remembering. To his everlasting shame as president, Clinton supported and signed welfare legislation that shredded the federal safety net for the poor from which he personally had benefited. He faithfully served big corporate interests by signing off on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization Act, which, as a gift to the banks, insurance companies and stockbrokers, reversed consumer protection legislation from the New Deal era. Thanks to Bill Clinton, those pirates were allowed to merge into the largest conglomerates the world has ever witnessed and, adding insult to injury, to "data-mine," thus sharing your most intimate financial and health information. Bill Clinton's next biggest concession to the fat cats was the Telecommunications Act, which ended what was left of public control of the airwaves and permits mega-media corporations to grow even bigger. No wonder Rupert Murdock and Hillary Clinton now get on so famously.

Yes, Bill Clinton was a very good president compared to what came immediately before and after, and his wife has many strong points in her favor, not the least of which is her wonkish intelligence. What I object to is the notion that the perspective of gender or race trumps that of economic class in considering the traumas of this nation. That is because the George W. Bush administration engaged in class warfare for the rich with a vengeance that has left many Americans hurting, and we desperately need change to reverse that destructive course.

John Edwards deserves credit for putting this issue of the growing division of American society front and center, and certainly Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has related his politics to growing up in abysmal poverty. As Kucinich has pointed out, a permanent war economy in which more than half of federal discretionary funds go to the military leaves no room for needed social programs. Question the honesty of any candidate who continues to vote for war funding while talking up all the wonderful domestic programs he or she claims to favor. At least Ron Paul is consistent in saying he would cut both.

Obviously, coming from an impoverished background does not ensure a social conscience, and there is no better example that the contrary can be true than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the scion of a wealthy family, who, as president, was a god in my Bronx home for expanding federal poverty programs that put food on our table when both my parents were out of work.

Yes, it is important for the health of our democracy to break barriers that have held back a majority of our citizens, and for that reason it would certainly be an advance to have a black or female president. But that alone is not enough to justify a vote. What we need far more than a change in appearance is one of perspective. Otherwise, Condoleezza Rice would make the ideal candidate.

Comments

[Arg]

You say Clinton was, at least relatively, a very good president. But we should be asking whether the Clintons' methods brought good results for the most needy on key issues, such as welfare and health care. Hillary's failure with health-care reform in 1993 is a textbook example of how not to do things. And consider this extended passage by Bob Reich, a friend of Bill Clinton since 1969 and his labor secretary, about his welfare reforms ("Clinton's Leap in the Dark: How the plight of the "next-to poor" has distorted the reform of welfare," by Robert B. Reich, American Prospect, 22 January 1999): "When during his 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton vowed to 'end welfare as we know it' by moving people 'from welfare to work,' he presumably did not have in mind the legislation that he signed into law in August 1996. The original idea had been to smooth the passage from welfare to work with guaranteed health care, child care, job training and a job paying enough to live on. The 1996 legislation contained none of these supports -- no health care or child care for people coming off welfare, no job training, no assurance of a job paying a living wage, nor, for that matter, of a job at any wage. In effect, what was dubbed welfare 'reform' merely ended the promise of help to the indigent and their children which Franklin D. Roosevelt had initiated more than sixty years before.... In short, being 'tough' on welfare was more important than being correct about welfare... Once elected, Clinton had two years in office with a Congress controlled by Democrats, but, revealingly, did not, during those years, forward to Congress a bill to move people from welfare to work with all the necessary supports, because he feared he could not justify a reform that would, in fact, cost more than than the welfare system it was intended to replace."

[weslah]

i love hilary; i like obama. most of my friends have that same love for one candidate, like for the other. why? because any intelligent person should!

Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton have a voting record that is over 90% consistent. over nine out of every ten votes, THEY VOTED THE EXACT SAME WAY!

loving one candidate while hating the other has nothing to do with fact.

you just don't like her and you'll find any excuse for it. you already chose your outcome and you'll search for any "fact" to back it up.

[realpolitic]

I would like to respectfully disagree with the idea that the changes in welfare legislation were harmful. Almost universally, Bill Clinton's change in the welfare legislation was judged as a resounding success. It reduced the welfare roles in probably all states around the country. It, however, did not reduce these roles in a Draconian way, but helped people make a transition from welfare to work. Families are more successful with a working member than where there is not one. Many who made the transition to work expressed that they would not want to return to the welfare rolls. Also, this act helped to change the negative perception of the Democratic party as one that backed an enormous welfare state and worked at the expense of the middle class.

[clr2]

I, as a woman, am not willing to vote for a candidate just because she is a woman. I am not voting for Hillary because I think she is a liar and I don't agree with anything she spews. If she were a man I still wouldn't vote for her. Voting for someone based on sex or race is asinine.

[outnow]

Robert:

Right on!

Surveys have shown that many Americans earn just $45,000 per year and they feel that they are doing well financially.

The fact is that the elites are waging class warfare against the middle class. There has been a huge upward shift of wealth in this country with NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WHO. Yet, amazingly voters are worried about guns, gays, and God and not about their class status.

This is called "false consciousness" in Europe where this American phenomenon has been studied extensively.

If you earn less than 200,000 per year you are committing economic suicide to vote for any Republican and any democrat other than Kucinich or maybe Edwards.

The truth is that the Americans are so far gone down the road of globilization that there remains only a shriveled concept of civic good. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the "flat earth" anti-democratic hooligans have elevated the invisible hand of the market and consumerism to our highest ideal.

The critical distinction is between the worker/consumer and the corporation, with the latter doing its best to screw the former.

Politics remain without substance as the crucial dimensions of life and the core values are excluded and commodities and technology substituted. The vertical ladder attained by technology is maintained by social inequality but the economic reinforcement does not encourage the masses to act for their own good.

The guardian of the guardians are the elites and the owners of the megacorporations. With the eclipse of Federalists in the 1790s, we are left with pure self-interest supposedly channeled into the greater good via market forces.

[yako]

Thank you Robert Sheer for this answer to Gloria Steinum's NYT op-ed which angered me with her outrageous use of the women's lib card. Hillary is one Democratic candidate who is least interested in what is good for the welfare of women by her taking BIG money from Rupert Murdoch, big pharma, and the military industrial complex.

[LaurieLee]

What I think will be fascinating will be the class and religious divide in the Republican party if Huckabee goes on to win a few more primaries. How will the economic elites take to a Baptist minister who believes the literal words of the bible? It's more difficult for a rich man to get through the gates of heaven than a camel through a needle's eye, right?
Or how about the neocons dealing with a president who feels that we live in a Christian nation? A man who sees Bush's middle east policies as overly hawkish and seems none-to-ready to hurry the Rature along?
Those divisions will be fascinating to watch.

[urbanrevolt]

I don't know about Rice, but Eleanor Holmes Norton would probably be great, she's used to fighting for the voiceless.

[nellie]

I greatly admire your work. But I must disagree somewhat with this analysis.

It isn't class either. It's public service vs. personal gratification. If people go into office to serve the public, protect the constitution, safeguard the commons, I don't care what class they're in. If helping the wealthy helps everyone else, too, then so be it.

The real problem is oligopoly and laws written for profit rather than principle. The division isn't about class. It's about greed. It's about using our government structure to enrich a small cabal of people with a stranglehold over our legislative process. And while doing this, they attempt to convince us that our money is being wasted on infrastructure, social safety nets, compassion, and good works—as they fund a monolithic killing machine that generates billions of dollars for owners and investors.

It isn't about class. It's about governance.

[mrman]

Just because your kid goes to a private school doen not mean you have money. My daughter went to private schools for 16 years. I rent, drive a 20 year old car and have no money to speak of....but her education has been priceless and If I die tomorrow no-one can take it from her. I'll probably have to work until I'm 80 but her education was worth it.

[LeonBNJ]

To me since old Ronnie's Administration, we have seen less of a race and gender division in America, and more of an economic class one. We have deregulated too much as to consumers, especially as to financial regulations, the enviroment, labor protections, ruining the welfare safety net, way too pro-corporate trade polices, made health secuity worse, jail more minorities, spend too much on unwanted wars and the like. I wish a Democrat would speak up and say they would undo many of these changes of the last 25 years. We need to get to an America that is fair to all no matter their income or assets.

[NABNYC]

Principles before personality, gender or race. What does this person stand for? How have they lived their life?

Everyone repeats Hillary's mantra that she has spent 35 years working for the people of this country. Say what? She worked as an attorney in a private law firm representing S&L cons and real estate developers, presumably making big bucks in doing so. And after that ....? What? We know her husband was an elected politician, and she as his wife accompanied him to dinners and on trips. But exactly what good did it do for single moms to know that Hillary went to some big dinner in Taiwan? So what? How does that represent working for us?

Hillary's entire "experience" story is hooey and I wish people would call her out on it. Just take this for one thing: when Bill left office they had a reported net worth of $600,000. During the past 7 years it has increased to $35.0 million largely as the result of enormous multinational corporations giving huge amounts of money to Bill. Raise your hand if you think they are trying to buy influence.

The post-white-house devotion of the Clintons has been to amassing a fortune for themselves, cozying up to the right-wing, and setting in place their plan to seize the white house for another 8 years.

I don't care if Hillary is female, male, or trans-gender. Her politics are strictly aimed at advancing the very narrow self-interests of getting money and power for the Clintons. She's done nothing for me or for any other working person. Vote Edwards.

[bluesky49876]

There is hardly anything in this post I can disagree with...right on mark. But there is nothing here to suggest that Obama would be more populist president than Clinton. Moreover, given the political we have, I am not even sure anyone can elected without the support of moneyed interests. The corporate has us so brainwashed that we could be driven to vote against our own self-interest. How else one could explain the electoral sucess of the Republicans that have nothing to offer to the public at large?

[MagisterLudi]

"What I object to is the notion that the perspective of gender or race trumps that of economic class in considering the traumas of this nation."

I consider Marx'"Critique of Political Economy" as one of the greatest works of both political and economic perspective.
However, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Marxists notion of class consciousness leaves most Americans indifferent, at best; and despite a century of consciousness raising efforts.
Arguably, every American modern politician who used class-struggle as a campaign point lost, and badly.
Glaring example: Gore.
Gore lost a lot of support when he began to stress the class theme.
Edwards will go down the same route (rout?)
Perhaps it's time to stop urinating against the proverbial wind.
Yes, class-warfare does exist. I agree, Bush policies were clearly designed to benefit his class.
But Americans simply don't want to hear about it. Is it rational? No. Many a church goin' blue collar worker voted for Bush in direct detriment to their economic interest.

OF COURSE there's a desperate need to reverse the damage wrought by Bush.
Who is a person qualified for for this monumental task?
Who can move the massive capital-supported ship of government?

Is it the person who is most correct in analysis, like Edwards?
Or he who serves up the most optimistic inanities, like Obama?
Or is it a person with a unique combination of brains,steely resolve and "chutzpah"? Hillary Clinton.
She's not the most progressive candidate. But I think she can achieve more for lower and middle classes than someone like Obama who has nothing to offer besides some template driven irritating nonsense about hope and sunrise.
Why is it that so many politicians follow Reagan's campaigning model?

[aSecondAmerican]

Scheer brilliance, Bob. Thank you for reminding us why the DLC types are weasels. We are grateful to Bill for holding the line in some places - but it's useful to remember the drawbacks too.

Edwards hasn't always been a good boy, but who else has dared to speak truth to power the way he has in this campaign?

Ben Stein wrote a great piece for the Times (11/26/2006) in which he quoted Warren Buffet as saying, "There's class warfare all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

[jazzman]

Robert Scheer has summed up my objections to the Clinton Republican light Presidency and a Hillary Presidency nicely. Clintons stabbed most Democrats in the back to court favor among their corporate elite class. I'm almost positive that these facts about the Clintons were lost on most of the older female Democrats in NH who rushed out to support their girl.

[modlady]

Obama went to an ELITE private school in Hawaii. I know cuz a close friend was in his class. He went to the best schools. How is that middle class? Middle class kids go to public schools.

[UtahLiberal435]

Mr. Scheer speaking about Iowa. "Maybe those younger women were more worried about how to pay off college loans or swelling mortgage obligations than gender identity."

Actually, those oh-so-politicall-dedicated younger women in Iowa audiences, when I saw Obama speak, were mostly talking about how 'hot' he was. Don't underestimate sheer looks, and audience shallowness in wooing audiences.

I'll agree with Mr. Scheer, Edwards should be congratulated for accurately recasting class warfare how it should be portrayed. While I was in Iowa during the caucuses, it was notable how Obama and HRCs rhetoric became more liberal as they watched Edwards' poll numbers climb.

But when Mr. Scheer calls Hillary's intelligence "wonkish," he instantly loses my respect with that stupid backhand swipe.

Intelligence, and the ability to deal with policy specifics, is a requisite for any GOOD presidential candidate.

[Markf1009]

Ahhhh, no. Class is about dollars. Economics is the driving force of class politics. Race and women's issues , are simply other reflections, at times more refracted of economics.

[Nommo]

Is class about who can afford to run the white water rapids or about those who cannot for worrying about the rent or some other heavy reality?

[ultrabop]

What has Hillary done to deserve the top job? I can't think of one thing except, "it takes a village." And defending herself for having Bill as a husband. I used to think Bill was a good President but look what he left on the table for Bush to work with. Pretty much an open bar. Whahooo! Let's walk out with the loot! He should have spent the money on infrastructure and setting up a health care system. He left it sitting on top of the table.

She doesn't inspire me with her "I can do the job" speeches. She sounds whiny, bitter, aching to get back at Bill for all of the crap he's done to her. Experience as First Lady? Give me a break! Obama doesn't have experience either but when he talks, we listen. He has vision. He's inspirational. He makes me proud to be an American again. For Godsake what happened to charisma???? He's got it!!!! Can you imagine a President with charisma???

Hillary looks in the mirror. She sees an old lady.

[Hattie]

Good observations. I think Steinem makes some excellent points, though, and what she says should not be discounted. Clinton is a lawyer, right enough, and I might have been one too if the discrmination against women in law schools had not been what it was when I was young. Or I might have been a physician. Who knows? But I got no encouragement, and all the models of success were men.
I don't hold her success against her but consider it a model to follow for my daughters and granddaughters.

[MelindaPost]

You don't get it. HC has had problems because she refused to do the women's card, causing that well-known (to women) problem of people thinking she was 'hard' rather than just trying to function in a mostly male-dominated situation (running for President). Having dealt with this as a female lawyer, I know well that if you don't behave according to male expectations of females (ie, subtle deference, curbing forthrightness, etc.) you're regarded as 'rhymes with witch.' In the law, alot of that has changed in the past few decades but the presidential profession is still in the dark ages. HC is essentially damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

[Karen1]

People in power use belittling terms like "gender card" and "political correctness" to silence any discourse that challenges the status quo.
The media expect women not to discuss being women. We're supposed to have historical amnesia. We're supposed to ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton's candidacy is historic, and we're supposed to forget that American women have only had the vote since 1920, and we're supposed to forget the Women's Movement.
And if anybody dares to make the connection between past and present, as Gloria Steinem did in her brilliant op-ed piece in the NY Times, well then that person is "divisive" and playing the gender "card."
This isn't a game.
And if Scheer wants to discuss class then he should discuss class. He diminishes his own argument by calling it the class "card" and by degrading Steinem and her message.

[Roses]

Speaking as a L-O-O-O-N-N-N-G-G-G time feminist, professional, woman and Democratic voter since 1972. I am a fervent Obama and Edwards supporter. I donnot want Hillary. Not because I think she is not smart, but because I think she is someone who is not real and has not "found her voice" as she claims. She is part of the political machinations in Washington DC.

Wonderful blog!!!
Obama/Edwards'08 or Edwards/Obama'08 whatever