(Danville, California)
Wow! Bill and Hillary Clinton are loaded, and good for them. Look! Being rich and famous is an American dream whether you inherit from the Rockefellers or you rise from the little town of Hope, Arkansas. This week the Clintons reported income of $20 million last year and a whopping $109 million since the year 2000. They've come a long way since their wedding day!
So what?
Well, there is nothing wrong with making that much money. New York Yankees great Alex Rodriguez will make $26 million this year, and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is always estimated in the $25 million dollar ballpark. You make what the market will bear. Can you imagine someone saying, "Wait! No! Keep it. That's way too much!" Actually, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not take his salary, and the same is true for some other wealthy politicians. But not many.
But what does the Clinton story tell us? Well, for one thing, it ought to end once and for all this silly nonsense that "the Republican Party is the party of the rich." That foolish (and false) notion continues to poison American politics, and it just isn't true. After all, I haven't seen any of the Kennedys in a soup kitchen lately. Have you?.
Who is wealthy in America? Many consider making $200,000 per year a sign of wealth. Last year 2.7 percent of Americans made that much. So let's be more generous. Last year 15.7 percent of Americans made over $100,000. Just for the fun of it, let's call them "America's Rich!"
Let's assume, too, ALL of them are Republicans and voted that way. If 16 percent of the nation are rich Republicans and the rest are not, then how do you explain George W. Bush winning two terms in the White House? How do we explain Republican control (or philosophical control) of Congress from 1994 to 2006? And how do we explain GOP landslides by Reagan in 1980 and 1984, as well as by Bush I in 1988?
"America's Rich" could not possibly be responsible for all of this, not when their number falls short of 16 percent of the entire population.
So how then does America elect its presidents? Well, almost always by a coalition of people. For example, a lot of union Democrats "jumped ship" in the 1980s because Jimmy Carter presided over a U.S. economy that was the worst since the Great Depression. A lot of other Democrats and independents chose Ronald Reagan after seeing the U.S. getting its teeth kicked in on the international stage.
In the 1990s it was runaway Congressional spending and the inability of the Democrats to balance a budget, as most American families had to do. Of course, this very same issue came back to bite Republicans in the rear end in 2006, when they, too, let spending soar out of control. Note to lawmakers: If you run Congress, spend only what you have, and balance the budget. You might just keep your job.
My point is that it takes a lot more than wealth to win an election. You have to have ideas. You have to show at least the promise of leadership in crisis. But money is important from one vantage point. It buys you access. It doesn't buy or guarantee you legislation, but it does give you a seat at the table.
My favorite example is the abortion issue. National Right to Life and NARAL give millions to each side every year. Obviously legislation doesn't always go the donors' way, but the millions they donate mean that they have a voice in the debate and that their views get represented. And both sides are backed by extremely wealthy advocates in both parties. So as I said earlier, the notion that the GOP is the party of the rich is silly and false. Barbara Streisand rich and politically influential? Who knew?
The one thing that has inspired many people this year is the number of small donations that have added up for Barack Obama. Instead of relying on big financial supporters (and he does have them), Obama has received hundreds of thousands of small $20 donations. It's something relatively new in American politics, and maybe it's a refreshing sign. Is it George Bailey defeating Mr. Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life?" We'll see. American politics is a bit more complicated than that! 
As for the Clintons, let them make what they want. The sky's the limit. But the sources of that money ought to be publicly disclosed to avoid questions of favoritism and impropriety; and I would expect the same from all other candidates too. Cindy McCain is a multimillion dollar heir to a beer fortune, and the Obamas saw their income surpass $1 million last year.
But to impugn a segment of our population (and to stereotype their politics), just because they make a certain amount of money is not only wrong, but it's also not true.
I will be writing my blog daily (hoping to make just a few bucks) so I can travel to Philadelphia later this month for the Pennsylvania Primary April 22. I will also be at primaries in North Carolina May 6; Oregon May 20; and Idaho, May 27.
Check in daily at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com
Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
No comments:
Post a Comment