Today on Blogcritics
Home » From Economic Apartheid to Political Revolution

From Economic Apartheid to Political Revolution

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Americans have always accepted a certain level of economic inequality as the inevitable consequence of an open capitalist society where some people through their own efforts do better than others. The presumption is that there is fairness in the marketplace and economic system. What a quaint, outdated belief.

Do most Americans really believe that the game is not rigged by rich powerful elites to preferentially benefit them? As certain as the law of gravity, the game IS rigged, and more than ever.

We have a plutocratic corporate state that now has taken economic inequality to new levels – in fact to what now is a sick and shameful condition of economic apartheid. To a society that increasingly separates Americans into two classes: the wealthy Upper Class and the Lower Class. The Upper Class has protected and gated mansions, private vacation spots and spas, special access shopping venues, private schools, lavish entertainment options, luxurious hospital accommodations, and private jets and stretch limos. The Upper Class does everything possible to PHYSICALLY separate itself from the poor, repugnant and uncouth members of the Lower Class. This physical separation is the hallmark of economic apartheid. The only contact the wealthy have and want with Lower Class people is when the latter serve, protect and pamper them. And of course they expect the hugely larger Lower Class to keep spending and borrowing their way into economic despair and to keep sustaining the two-party mafia. Voting for Democrats and Republicans is as meaningful as voting for American Idol contestants. Nothing more than a self-destructive distraction.

In Las Vegas the truly rich have their private gambling rooms and clubs, and occupy special access suites. In sports stadiums they luxuriate in their glass boxes high above the masses. In the Pacific and Caribbean they have their private island hideaways. On the oceans they travel in self-indulgent yachts. They eat in private rooms in the most expensive restaurants. The biggest entertainment stars attend their private social functions. And, yes, they have all the access they want to high government officials in both major parties because they provide them with all the campaign money they need. And hidden from public view they – and only they – have incredible opportunities to invest their riches to easily receive 30 percent annual gains with little taxation. As they get ever richer they find it increasingly difficult to spend all their wealth – but they handle the chore with alacrity.

What is remarkable about this new society is that there are MILLIONS of these super-rich, physically isolated Americans. They mingle with millions more throughout the world. As globalization has devastated the once proud middle class it has expanded this elitist wealthy class worldwide, even in the poorest nations.

Economic statistics keep solidly documenting growing economic inequality. But I fear that the most economically oppressed and barely surviving peasants have neither the time nor energy to ponder and fret over these data. Here are some new data that reveal an important historic reality.

Economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty have recently revealed just how horrendous the inequality gap has become. Way back in 1928, the last full year before the Great Depression began, the families that made up America’s richest top hundredth of 1 percent had incomes that averaged $8.2 million, as measured in dollars inflation-adjusted to 2005 levels. That is one per 10,000 households. In 1928 that amounted to some 5,000 households. These super-rich averaged 891 times more income than families in the bottom 90 percent averaged. By 1955, in the midst of post-World War II prosperity, families in the top hundredth of 1 percent took home only $3.8 million, in inflation-adjusted dollars. They made just 179 times the average bottom 90 percent income. There was much more economic equality because of shared prosperity. Even in 1980, the richest of the rich took home 175 times more than Americans in the bottom 90 percent – still relatively good economic equality. Then things changed.

Consider the figures for 2005: the top hundredth of 1 percent, about 10,000 households, averaged $25.7 million in income, three times the money in 1928. This amounted to 882 times more than the bottom 90 percent average — an economic inequality gap in 2005 that’s almost identical to the 891-to-1 divide in 1928! Welcome to the modern billionaire world of the rich getting much, much richer, while everyone else stagnates. Of course, the top 1 percent of households are also extremely rich – some 1 million families or 3 million people – relatively to the bottom, majority 90 percent.

Married couples with children now account for fewer than one-quarter of American households – the lowest in history. It is the Upper Class that now emphasizes marriage with children. Married households with children are twice as likely to be in the top 20 percent of income. Some 13 percent of the increase in the nation’s income inequality since the 1970s results from the marriage of high income earners. Marriage is now for the rich. What does that say about American democracy and culture? That the Upper Class is like an inbred aristocracy. Children of the rich will marry other children of the rich.

Another critically important change in the real (ugly) America is the bursting of the traditional fantasy-belief that people can educate themselves into wealth. Is getting more Americans educated and trained all we need to do to attack economic inequality? If so, then inequality should fall over periods of time when people become more educated. Right? Americans have become more educated over the last three decades. In 1970, only three out of four Americans aged 25-29 had completed high school. In 2004, nearly nine of ten Americans that age had a high school education. In 1970, only 16 percent of Americans in their late 20s held a four-year college degree. By 2004, that had nearly doubled to 29 percent. Something else has nearly doubled since 1970: the share of national income that goes to America’s richest 1 percent.

That means that the share going to average Americans has dropped. Lower Class Americans in the bottom 90 percent of the nation’s income distribution took home 67 percent of U.S. income in 1970, but only 53 percent in 2004, despite their greater education and productivity. American reality: We’ve become more unequal at the same time we’ve become more educated. Why? Education doesn’t determine how income and wealth – or macro domestic and global prosperity – are distributed in our unfair system. The Upper Class ensures that increasing fractions of income and wealth go to them.

Here is more painful statistical truth: In 2004, the most recent year with IRS data just about 25,000 taxpayers took home over $5 million. After exploiting every loophole they paid an average 21.9 percent of their incomes in federal income tax. Back in 1952, at the height of the Korean War, the comparable federal tax bite on America’s richest 25,000 averaged 51.9 percent. About a decade earlier, in the middle of World War II, the 25,000 highest-income taxpayers in the United States paid 68.4 percent of their incomes in federal income tax. How things have changed for the wealthy. A greater fraction of the nation’s prosperity has gone to the Upper Class AND they pay less tax! Economic power produces political power.

This is worth pondering: When will the economic inequality that has morphed into two-class economic apartheid provide sufficient pain and disgust for a few hundred million Americans to fuel political revolution?

When will the stranglehold of the Upper Class on the political system that criminally distorts the economic system be busted? When will Lower Class consumers that drive the economy take back their sovereign power? When will they understand they are losing the class war and revolt?

It will take historically unique action, not electing different Democrats or Republicans. Our Constitution provides the tool – not used for over 200 years because the power elites do not want it used – an Article V convention outside the control of the White House and Congress to consider political and government reforms. Learn more about it at www.foavc.org.

Powered by

About Joel S. Hirschhorn

Formerly full professor Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, and senior official Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and National Governors Association. Author of four nonfiction books and hundreds of articles.
  • JustOneMan

    Great satire!! This is the funniest I have read on this site!
    JOM

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    In your effort to promote class warfare you’ve missed a couple of very important aspects of the wealth distribution picture.

    Most importantly you completely overlook the fact that the upper income brackets are growing at an impressive rate as a result of upward income mobility. While the divide between the ultra rich and the rest of us may be growing, more and more people are moving into the middle and upper middle income groups.

    What you also overlook is that the base standard of living in the US is quite high. Even our poorest working people are rich in material goods, luxuries and the convenience of life.

    You’re thinking about numbers and not really thinking about how people are living. The wealth of the ultra rich is meaningless to the rest of the economy. The fact that Bill Gates earns a billion dollars a year doesn’t actually make the rest of us poorer. It’s a false comparison. He’s not becoming wealthy at our expense, it’s just that when wealth is built for all it’s built at a faster rate if you already have more to begin with.

    In fact, an explosion of wealth at the top of the economy is generally a sign that everyone is doing quite well in proportion to where they started.

    More Americans than ever before are invested in the stock market and thus profit off of the same engine which drives the fortunes of the wealthiest.

    I wrote an article on this a while ago, with some amazing data on the number of people who have moved from what we would consider the middle class into what once was considered ‘rich’, but because of the huge number of people who have moved up to that income level we now have to consider it a sort of upper middle class. There’s been a real explosion of people in the $100,000 a year but less than $500,000 a year income group, and a similar growth in all sorts of assets.

    So yes, there’s a gap in wealth between the rest of us and the relatively large number of the ultra rich, but who cares if so many of us are doing better than ever before and the opportunity for economic advancement is still there?

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Oh, and as for your desire to exercise Article V, I hope it never happens if what you express in this article represents your agenda. What are you planning to do, ammend the Constitution to institute mandatory wealth equalization and government seizure of private property and assets and nationalization of businesses? No thanks.

    Dave

  • dee

    “In fact, an explosion of wealth at the top of the economy is generally a sign that everyone is doing quite well in proportion to where they started.”

    I love this argument and it is complete bull. Guy, don’t just make statements, back it up with numbers. This is where you fail and the author of this article destroys his comments. Its just like the justification for tax cuts for the rich. They tell you it helps you but don’t back it up. Don’t buy it. I for one cannot see (for any reason) how anyone can justify why some one he is already in the best position somehow needs MORE help. What a joke tax cuts for the rich are. A couple things here, Dave speaks about a middle class… Dave there is no middle class anymore. America will soon be rich people who can get and do anything they want and everyone else struggling or living paycheck to paycheck. The middle class is becoming extinct right now. Last I checked Bill Gates needs people and or customers to buy his overpriced products that in turn allow him to become rich. So yes he doesn’t make us poorer but he is rich because of everyone else, that you fail to recognize. The class war will becoming soon, its enevitable due to the arrogance of the rich, who in American society, can get away with anything it they have enough money. That’s just not right. There is no accountability for the rich which feeds the fire for the poor who have to be accountable. It will take something like global warming related catastrophies to get it started. I can’t wait and I would start the Article V stuff tomorrow due to the state of corruption in our government at the moment. Our system is failing the people who built it.

  • moonraven

    I am going to have to quote Nalle, too:

    “In fact, an explosion of wealth at the top of the economy is generally a sign that everyone is doing quite well in proportion to where they started.”

    This is the MOST stupid comment yet from Nalle on this site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Here in Mexico 1% of the population owns approximately 82% of the country’s wealth.

    Carlos Slim Helu is hard on the heels of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Considering that only in the year 2006 did he add 20 BILLION dollars to his net worth, he will soon be the richest man on the planet.

    He is currently the third richest–and we have a nice big handful of other Forbes list richies here, too.

    They are on that list at the expense of the Mexican people.

    Carlos Slim’s monopoly phone company has the highest phone rates in the world. And that’s just the big cheese in his basket of assets.

    Chavez stopped him in his tracks in Venezuela when he offered to buy CANTV, and re-nationalized the phone company instead. Other Latin American leaders are far less responsible–soon Slim will own half of Chile….

    The point of all this being that it’s folks like Nalle who have given short-sightedness a free reign in the USA.

    Where everyone is free to swim in the economic toilet.

  • moonraven

    Actually it should be “rein/reign”.

  • Dave Nalle

    I love this argument and it is complete bull. Guy, don’t just make statements, back it up with numbers. This is where you fail and the author of this article destroys his comments.

    I have backed it up with numbers and I’ve done it numerous times and in exhaustive detail. I’ll help you out. Read my prior articles (or the two I can post links to):

    America a Nation of Millionaires
    The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get…Even Richer?

    Its just like the justification for tax cuts for the rich.

    You mean the Bush tax cuts which overwhelmingly favored the very poor and the middle class?

    They tell you it helps you but don’t back it up.

    Sometimes we get tired of pointing out the obvious.

    Don’t buy it. I for one cannot see (for any reason) how anyone can justify why some one he is already in the best position somehow needs MORE help. What a joke tax cuts for the rich are.

    Tax cuts for the ‘rich’ are irrelevant. What matters is what those tax cuts do for everyone else. If greater spending and investment from the wealthy stimulates the economy that’s certainly a plus since it helps us all, but cutting taxes for the rest of us has more immediate benefits.

    A couple things here, Dave speaks about a middle class… Dave there is no middle class anymore.

    You’ve been listening to Lou Dobbs, haven’t you? The fact that unionized workers in Michigan have had to take $200K severance packages and move on to new jobs doesn’t mean the end of the middle class. In fact, the middle class is expanding and becoming wealthier than ever before. Saying there’s no middle class because now the middle class makes more money than we’d traditionally associate with the middle class is ridiculous.

    America will soon be rich people who can get and do anything they want and everyone else struggling or living paycheck to paycheck. The middle class is becoming extinct right now. Last I checked Bill Gates needs people and or customers to buy his overpriced products that in turn allow him to become rich. So yes he doesn’t make us poorer but he is rich because of everyone else,

    People are not forced to buy his products there arre alternatives which are both better (Apple) and cheaper (Linux) which anyone can buy. I just bought my daughter a NEW laptop for $400. Suggesting that computer products are overpriced is insane. Gates and people like him make money by providing competitive products at the lowest price possible, and that’s great for a nation of consumers.

    that you fail to recognize. The class war will becoming soon, its enevitable due to the arrogance of the rich, who in American society, can get away with anything it they have enough money. That’s just not right. There is no accountability for the rich

    Let’s see some evidence to back this up. Show me where the rich are getting away with murder or other crimes. How about the CEOs of Enron, Tyco , Adelphia and Worldcom. Maybe you could send them a letter in jail.

    which feeds the fire for the poor who have to be accountable. It will take something like global warming related catastrophies to get it started. I can’t wait and I would start the Article V stuff tomorrow due to the state of corruption in our government at the moment. Our system is failing the people who built it.

    The people who BUILT our system were the ultra rich. You should read up on the members of the Constitutional Convention sometime. It was dominated by the wealthiest and best educated people in America.

    Dave

  • Dave Nalle

    MR, I wasn’t talking about Mexico. No one was.

    The fundamental difference between Mexico and the US is that while the rich in both countries are rich, the rich in Mexico are a tiny group and the rich in the US are a huge group. In addition, the rest of the population in Mexico is truly poor while most of the population in the US lives in comparative luxury.

    Dave

  • moonraven

    If you want to exampt all other countries from your silly economic law, why did you write “generally”?

    Sorry, Nalle, but the Gini Coefficient for the US is showing a big inequity in wealth, also.

    You might check the article, complete with graphs on Sustainable Middle Class. To boil it down quickly, this is the lead statement:

    “Labor Department data shows the U.S. Gini Coefficient is rising. If the current trend continues, then the American income gap will resemble that of Mexico by year 2043.”

    Now, Nalle, you thought everybody was just going to believe you, or what?

  • Lumpy

    You do undersand that the GINI is just a relative comparison of the top and bottom of the economy. If it reaches a high number from a few people becominf super rich while the rest atay the same it doesn’t mean the same as it does for mexico where the rich are few and the poor are very poor.

  • moonraven

    That’s why the Gini Coeficient for Mexico is not the same as that of the US.

    I am actually pretty familiar with this, as I gave a presentation about it at a university here a couple of years ago.

    It has not changed its stripes since then.

  • Clavos

    …If the current trend continues, then the American income gap will resemble that of Mexico by year 2043.”

    A prediction like that has about as much validity and credibility as the predictions about global warming effects, or those by Malthus, Paul Ehrlich or the Club of Rome.

    Zero.

  • moonraven

    Ah, clavos the EXPERT strikes again.

    Too bad he’s always wrong but just wants our attention by posting.

    A sad case.

    Maybe the Easter Bunny will bring him a nice big chocolate egg to smear in his hair.

  • Clavos

    @#13:

    Excellent refutation of my #12!!

    I especially enjoyed all the facts with source links.

    Can you spell ad hominem??

    Pathetic, as always…

  • moonraven

    On a more cheerful note, the socialist countries of Scandinavia are all right about 25–about 15 points below the US.

    Those are UN comparisons from the year 2000, but if anything the gap is widening.

  • moonraven

    The source was given in Number 9, illiterate one. And you can check my last, UN, figures in wikipedia.

    [Personal attack deleted. I made the raw link you left correctly formatted and active for the benefit of your many avid readers, ma’am. Your beloved Comments Editor]

  • moonraven

    EEEEWWWWW–It was not a CHOCOLATE egg that’s all over his illiterate face.

    Clavos, the economic consultant to the Oval Office…..What a riot.

  • Clavos

    mr, as usual, goes berserk when her assertions are questioned, as I did in #12.

    However, here’s an entire list of problems with using the Gini coefficient to compare disparate economies, such as Mexico with the US.

    Some excerpts: The Gini coefficient measured for a large economically diverse country will generally result in a much higher coefficient than each of its regions has individually. For this reason the scores calculated for individual countries within the EU are difficult to compare with the score of the entire US.

    And: Comparing income distributions among countries may be difficult because benefits systems may differ. For example, some countries give benefits in the form of money while others give food stamps, which may not be counted as income in the Lorenz curve and therefore not taken into account in the Gini coefficient.

    Also: As for all statistics, there will be systematic and random errors in the data. The meaning of the Gini coefficient decreases as the data become less accurate. Also, countries may collect data differently, making it difficult to compare statistics between countries.

    There are others in the list linked.

  • Dave Nalle

    The main problem with using the gini system is that it counts in as the top level of the range the class of people whose wealth essentially transcends nationality. A comparison between the ultra rich and the rest of the population of a single nation says nothing about conditions for normal people in that population.

    A more valid comparison would be between the wages of high and low wage earners not taking non-wage compensation or other earnings into consideration, but most of those who use gross figures like gini aren’t interested in a fair or valid analysis.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Don’t you just love arguing with idiots Dave?

  • Les Slater

    “When will the stranglehold of the Upper Class on the political system that criminally distorts the economic system be busted? When will Lower Class consumers that drive the economy take back their sovereign power? When will they understand they are losing the class war and revolt?”

    Soon.

    The consumer part of it is not the most inportant even though very important. It is the workers that make the products that are consumed that are the most important. We are getting screwed and will start taking action to rectify the situation.

  • moonraven

    Clavos, when did you teach or present this topic to universities and get paid for it?

    You folks are living in a dream world because you think you are getting a share of the pie when you are not even getting crumbs.

    Maybe it’s time to trot out my in bad taste very probably apocryphal story about Hitler’s saying that after the application of The Final Solution that there would only be enough Jews left at the end of the Final Solution to ride in one limo through the streets of Berlin….

    And the punch line is, when the Jewish person who told me the story was asked why the Jews did not resist more:

    EVERYBODY THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO BE IN THE LIMO.

    If you are not completely insane, you will be able to get my point that you guys should be resisting instead of dreaming of being on the Forbes List.

  • bliffle

    Right. Eventually US citizens will be so revolted by the wave of corruption, greed and selfishness that the Bush Gang have indulged that the democrats will be able to walk into office.

    But they’ll find a big mess that they are unable to solve. The reps have front-loaded their takeouts while back-loading the payouts. That is, they’ve already gotten their money in the form of campaign contributions, bribes, and brokerage deals. So they’ve arranged to SPEND trillions while postponing paying for their excesses. That’s for future generations, not them.

    It’ll be hard to raise taxes, especially since the New Wealthy have exported their assets to other economies or denominated them in currencies that will appreciate as the dollar crumbles under the burden of debt and the Big Bank Run as other countries abandon. They would have to raise taxes on the future generations of impoverished americans.

    So all they can do is cut spending, which the Bush gang was too cowardly to actually do. So where can they cut? The expensive war will be over and the money spent already, no chance there.

    So the only hope is to cut periodic expenditures, daily expenses, daily payouts. And since contract payouts to corporations are considered sacred, the only choice will be to cut entitlement payouts to citizens: they are ‘soft’ recipients, while corps are ‘hard’ recipients.

    So every form of people payout (social security, medicare, etc.) will be looted to allow our decrepit government to continue paying out on old no-bid contracts from the Idiotic Iraq Invasion.

    The guys who lost the US economy will continue to get theirs while the suckers who voted for them will continue to lose money from funds that they front-loaded with cash, like social security. Bush already spent the money.

    The average US Sucker/Citizen won’t have enough money left to buy a quart of gas and an empty wine bottle to start a revolution. All the brave talk of guys like Nalle and clavos will disappear like a puff of smoke.

    The only succor for the post-bush anti-bush folks will be the hope that deadbeat veterans like Clavos get their luxurious VA benefits cut off first.

  • Clavos

    The only succor for the post-bush anti-bush folks will be the hope that deadbeat veterans like Clavos get their luxurious VA benefits cut off first.

    And a vain hope it is, Blifthuselah.

    If anything in this country is sacred, it’s us vets.

    So keep paying your taxes, bliffy; I want to buy a Bentley this year.

  • MCH

    “All the brave talk of guys like Nalle and clavos will disappear like a puff of smoke.”

    The main difference between the two being, of course, that Clavos has actually backed up his words with…er…oops…never mind.

    Just remembered the “MCH Exception.”

    Never mind.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Thanks, Emmy.

  • Clavos

    emmy writes:

    The main difference between the two being, of course, that Clavos has actually backed up his words with…er…oops…never mind.

    Which gave me a chuckle.

    But, in any case, I don’t support the war, which bliffthuselah hasn’t noticed.

  • bliffle

    So, Clavos is not only a welfare deadbeat, but also against Our Troops!

    I suppose that next we will find out he is a marxist.

  • Clavos

    So, Clavos is not only a welfare deadbeat, but also against Our Troops!

    I AM against the troops, scooter. I’m against the troops…being there.

    What’s wrong with Marxism?

  • Les Slater

    “What’s wrong with Marxism?”

    What can be wrong with Marxism?

    “The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

    “They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.”

    Karl Marx, Freddy Engels – Communist Manifesto.

  • Clavos

    So what happens to us welfare deadbeats under Communism? Do we have to go to work? Or will the state continue to support me?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    The state will support you in the style to which illegal immigrants are currently accustomed.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Oh.

    Well, in that case, I’ll stick with capitalism, thank you.

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    This past year I got tired of doing the electronic engineer thing and opted for an early retirement (63) from social security. I get $1,606 per month plus I have a pension from GE where I worked a couple of years, $123.17 per month, total $1,729.17 per month, no other income. I got an apartment in Detroit and plan on doing politics full time.

    Welfare and retirement should be enough to live comfortably on. The main thing is to make jobs available. I will not have to work. I would if I thought I could be useful to society. I’m sure you would too.

    Les

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Brave move, Les. At that age I’d feel pretty leery about retiring on so little, though I imagine it goes farther in Detroit than it does down here.

    I hope that if you go into politics full time you’ll become an advocate for the people and not just another stooge of the institutionalized left which is so powerful up there.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    Thanks for the kind sentiments. Don’t worry, I won’t be a stooge for anyone. I plan to lead.

    Les

  • Clavos

    Les,

    I too, think you’re pretty gutsy and wish you lots of luck.

    Re the welfare thing: that’s bliffle’s idea of a joke, because as a patient there, I have been defending the VA recently on other threads.

    Actually, though I took early retirement from the airline industry several years ago, I’m self employed and still actively working, though not full time, as I’m also my paraplegic wife’s primary caregiver.

    Anyway, I’m not really on welfare.

  • http://www.constitutionallyright.com/test.html Charles

    You can talk all you want about wealth inequality, but realize we currently live in a welfare state. Our government taxes those who earn money in order to provide for those who dont.

    Is it possible the reason the income gap between the rich and the poor has widened is because our Government offers handouts to those who cannot, or do not earn for themselves?

    You speak of tax cuts for the rich, however you fail to realize that the “rich” people already carry the largest tax burden, while at the same time supply the majority of the jobs. Over 25% of Americans do not pay taxes because their income levels are too low. Those same people recieve benefits from our Government, who pays for those benefits?

    I for one am all for a political revolution, but not in the sense you refer to. I would like to see the Welfare State we live in disappear. The more you reward people for not earning their keep, the more you will see people not earning their keep.

    The New Deal was a bad deal!

  • STM

    Charles, ostrich-like, writes: “You can talk all you want about wealth inequality, but realize we currently live in a welfare state. Our government taxes those who earn money in order to provide for those who dont”

    If you think America is a welfare state, you have another think coming. Of all of today’s great western democracies, it is the one most concerned with the idea of every man for himself and the one with least concerns about the benefit of what I prefer to call “community” … and the notion of community, of having at least some concern for the wellbeing of your fellow man, has very little to do with socialism and welfare states.

    Also, I’ve been dying to ask: are you Charles Signorile and is your name fair-dinkum, or made up?

  • STM

    And I’ll add to that: it also isn’t about so-called “liberalism” (an outdated concept anyway), although some to-the-right-of-Genghis-Khan commentators who don’t know any better might choose to see it that way.

  • Clavos

    I used to be a follower of Genghis, but he lost me with that spending habit of his.

    And when he came out in favor of gun control, that was it, I switched and went over to Attila.

  • STM

    Mate, seriously, Attila was a liberal … you only have to look at his employment policies.

    Basically, it said: Whatever booty you get from raping and pillaging, it has to be evenly distributed among ALL the huns.

  • Clavos

    So THAT’S why he always carried that little red book in his pack…

  • STM

    Nah, that had the names and addresses of all the good sorts he’d met. Originally, it had been black but after the bloody sacking of various cities, it became red.

  • moonraven

    What makes you think Genghis was a right-winger?

%d bloggers like this: