There’s Only 1 Party of the Rich?
The Anchoress makes a keen observation:
Chelsea Clinton works for Avenue Capital and makes an estimated 6 figure salary. Not bad for a woman in her mid-twenties and I certainly don’t begrudge her; Chelsea seems to be a private and perfectly nice person, and if either of my kids could make that kind of sugar not long after college, I’d say “buy Mama a condo near the water when she is old” and be happy for them.
But one cannot help noting that all we ever hear about President Bush is that he is “rich,” from “old money” and he represents “greedy capitalism” etc, etc…yet, his daughter Jenna is a public elementary school teacher in Washington DC, by no means a glamour gig. The Dems talk about how they’re all about taking on the big greedy capitalists and terrible corporations that hurt the middle class and the environment, yadda, yadda, yet the Clintons friends are all incredibly wealthy – mostly “new” money – they’re all very “Corporate” and their daughter works in the “corporate” world. Seems like there are stereotype templates at work here (GOP evil, greedy, uncaring, rich – Democrats Middle Class, compassionate, unmaterialistic, good) that don’t quite jibe with the reality, no?
Reality: they’re all rich. We need someone with a thinner wallet (you know, just an “average” millionaire), so let’s hope that the streak doesn’t continue.
I would enjoy a condo by the water.
Is it possible that Chelsea is a tad brighter than Jenna? Chelsea did go to Stanford, after all.
Republicans idealize–and idolize–making money, except when a Dem does it. Then it becomes hypocrisy. John Edwards is the American Dream: lower middle class boy Hits It Big. But he’s a phony because he remembers where he came from, and tries to help the people who weren’t as fortunate as he was.
Is the problem that people like Chelsea and Edwards (presumably, in Chelsea’s case) still lean Dem, instead of throwing their lot in with the Reps and the Plutocracy? You know like FDR, whom many still consider a “traitor to his class.”
As I’ve said many times before, it’s not just money. Money is Power. If one group gets most of the money–which is what has happened–they gain most of the power. That’s what Dems object to: using power solely to benefit a single class, as we’ve been doing for the past 25 years.
McCain-Feingold was an attempt to implement some minimal change to the current system, but the Reps fought it tooth and nail. Why was that? Because they happen to have most of the wealthy donors? (Which they do; the donors who give the max are overwhelmingly Rep.)
Mark, this is the sort of cheap, easy partisanship I’d expect from Justin. Believe it or not, I agree with a lot of what you say, but this just seems a tad thoughtless.
klaus, actually, you’re reading way more into this than intended (and putting thoughts into my mouth—-mixed metaphor intended). I thought I pretty clearly and concisely stated my point: “Reality: they’re all rich. We need someone with a thinner wallet…” And I won’t get into the game of refuting one stereotype with another. Simply, the post was intended to be more iconoclastic than partisan.
When somebody who’s neither rich nor has big bucks becomes a player…that’s when the GOP and Democrats close ranks.
OK, sorry, that is what your comment to the quote said, and I agree with that.
However, the link to the Anchoress says something else. My comments are more accurately directed to her. OTOH the link implies a certain level of agreement, especially as you say the insight is “keen.” No?
And why do so few right-leaning blogs allow open comments?
1) “keen” in that scion’s of two political families are following paths that stereotypically should be reversed. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the title of the post was a big hint, too.
2) open comments – don’t know, but we do.
“And why do so few right-leaning blogs allow open comments?”
Klaus, you kinda chose the wrong blog in which to make that complaint.