The Muddled Class

Politicians of all stripes have given a lot of lip service to 'protecting the middle class'. In the process, the definition of middle class has been stretched, pulled, tugged and warped. By now, the definition of middle class is snapped - just like the minds of the people running our government (into the ground). So how about a little historical perspective?

For most of human history, there were two classes of people -- the peasants and the nobles. Or more to the point, the ruled and the rulers. (Yes, I know, in most societies there were earls and dukes as well as the king but this is the equivalent of differentiating between Bill Gates and the Hilton family -- rich is rich and nobility is nobility.) But in the period leading up to the Industrial revolution a portion of the peasantry began to distinguish itself from the rest. These people were merchants. They provided an economic benefit to the realm through their services, products and expertise.

As this group grew in size, its members began to acquire the attention of the political leadership. Soon enough, these successful individuals would become a new political class -- the middle class. Between the peasantry / labor class and the nobility / ruling class existed those whose political power devolved from their ability to create new wealth for their nation.

Then an honest definition for the middle class today would be those who have the wherewithal to establish a new company to provide products or services. This would actually be a rather broad definition as it extends from the hairstylist who has been saving her wages for years in order to set up her own beauty parlor to the doctor ready to set up an independent practice. However, these are the individuals who have the skills and the economic power to employ themselves and others. This is the true key. The power of small business is in expanding the number of available jobs, usually the number of well compensated jobs.

You see, big business is very competitive for executive jobs, but when it comes to labor jobs or lower management and supervisory positions, the big company has a major advantage in designating pay and other compensation. Small business, on the other hand must offer a bit more to draw quality employees. Small business cannot provide the job guarantee that large corporations can so they must offset the risk an employee accepts by providing better compensation.

The end result is that small business is an engine of wealth generation and job growth. Furthermore, it it is the ability to create wealth that sets apart the middle class. Therefore the middle class is rightly defined as small business owners or those who have the capacity to become small business owners.

Let it Burn

Well the two democratic candidates met and battled last night. Say what you want about who won or lost or how badly. The fact of the matter is that this debate would never have even happened if it were not for Rush Limbaugh's 'Operation Chaos'.

For those not up-to-date on political goings on, since the apparent conclusion of the Republican nomination process, Rush Limbaugh has been urging his listeners to register as Democrats and vote in that primary. The intent is to bolster Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign against the then Senator Obama-mania juggernaut.

The plan has been an apparent success. Sen. Clinton is still 'alive' in the primary and each week a new skeleton comes dancing out of Sen. Obama's closet. (aside: No one has this many kooks and thugs as friends unless they share the sentiments.) This would not be happening if the Clinton war machine was not in the fight. Be honest folks, the Clintons have a dirty tricks task force that makes Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon look like cubscouts (and Hillary ran this 'plumbers unit' when Bill was in office).

At the same time, Sen. Clinton is spinning herself into oblivion as well. Who recalls running from sniper fire when it has never happened? Ok, if she had often landed under sniper fire and this was one of the few times she hadn't I'd understand. Any takers on that bet? On the other hand, it gave Dick Cheney fodder for a good joke.

The results of Operation Chaos are surely paying off for Mr. Limbaugh. But is it a good tactic? Take your pick -- good can be defined as effective or as right. On the measure of effective -- duh. Whether or not it is right -- I would say no. I firmly believe that a party primary should always be a closed affair. The primary is where the party choses who will represent it in the general election. Thus, only party members should be allowed to vote in the primary.

However, Rush may be taking the 'two wrongs make a right' approach here. You see, Democrats have been messing with the Republican primary for quite some time. In fact, this cycle the Democrats where successful. How else do you explain the fact that the Republican nominee is a man whose policy positions (until the past two months) are more liberal than most Republican voters?

Frankly, I'm getting tired of the whole mess. I'd love to say "A pox on both your houses" and find a real third party. Unfortunately we don't really have one. The Libertarians tried to run there guy in the Republican primary (Ron Paul). The Green Party is marginalized, but at least their candidate and members have the cajones to stand up for their beliefs rather than vote for a more 'viable' candidate. (You know what defines a 'viable' candidate -- someone people vote for!!!)

For some time, both parties have been pursuing a 'big tent' strategy -- telling everyone "Oh, we're for you." If you try to please everyone, you wind up please no one and accomplishing nothing. I for one think the American political process would be a lot healthier if we had 4 or 5 parties that stand up for their policy positions. This doesn't mean they never compromise, just that they don't sell out a set of stated core values. Until then, the Democrat's are tearing their house apart. I say let it burn.

The Red Herring

Many people in politics love to divert attention from the real issue by throwing out a red herring argument. I just watched a clip of Elton John at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser. He took a breather from singing to extol his view of Senator Clinton's virtues as a prospective president.

All of this is well and good. I'm all for free speech. Individual freedom is one of my big bugaboos. Sir John is certainly welcome to support whom he wants and advocate for his choice to his heart's content. Here's where the problem lies: Elton John then begins to excoriate America at large, laying out his belief that misogyny is behind the lukewarm poll numbers for his treasured candidate.

Time to burst the bubble on Sir John's (and other people's) la-la land. Hillary Clinton is only marginally to the right of Karl Marx (and I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt here). Add to that she runs a dirty tricks machine that makes Nixon look like the most off-key contestant on amateur night. I do not agree with her policies in any way and I find her methods contemptible. Therefore, I am not going to vote for her and would oppose her with every means. The fact that she sits down to pee is irrelevant.

Now, if in the future a female ( or black or latino, etc.) candidate runs on conservative principles and I oppose them, Sir John may trot out the charge of bigotry. Until then, it's just a load of malarky. Or, the more polite version - it's a red herring.