Readers occasionally ask me how I come up with topics for this column. It's usually easy enough, simply responding to some outrage, whether it's the Green Bay Packers throwing away a trip to the Super Bowl in five minutes, a governor throwing "the search for truth" out of a great university's mission statement, or yet another outrageous comment from a hypocritical politician - and there are plenty of those.
Last week when I was contemplating my next topic, I wake up to NPR's "Morning Edition," and the first thing I hear is Mara Liasson rambling on about Mitt Romney's discovery of American income inequality. And blaming it on - guess who? - President Barack Obama. Bingo - next topic.
Mr. Romney's hypocrisy should be enough to produce outrage in anybody to the Left of Mr. Limbaugh. Mitt Romney - the presidential candidate of 2012 who seriously believed that concern over the increasing concentration of American income and wealth among the top fraction of one percent of Americans was nothing more than envy of the wealthy.
No, Mr. Romney - people don't care if you have more houses than you can count. They are concerned about making payments on their own houses, and how they can achieve middle class status, or maintain it if they are already there.
So Mr. Romney, Karl Rove, and their minions express shock, shock that people just didn't understand their message. They just need to refine their message, they say.
So at last, Mr. Romney sees increasing inequality of income and wealth, and stagnation of American middle class, as an issue. He is joined in this chorus by GOP presidential hopefuls including Jeb Bush, and even Tea Party favorite, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. And, of course, they blame Obama; never mind that the same politicians who blame the president have fought, and continue to fight, the president on every proposal he has made to address this issue.
This is a perfect example of a predictable, repetitive political strategy employed on any number of public policy issues, including access to affordable health care, global warming and climate change, instability of financial institutions, environmental pollution, and income inequality and stagnation of the middle class.
Step one is denial. The problem "doesn't exist," except perhaps in the minds of liberals, mainly Democrats. It's just a "conspiracy" drummed up to get political support for some undefined agenda.
Step two is when the problem becomes severe enough to be recognized by those initially denying its existence. It's then dismissed as "the natural order of things." Economic Darwinism, inevitable market forces, - "nothing can be done about it."
Eventually the problem becomes so acute as to create public pressure to do something about it. The next step then is to insist that even though something could be done about it, nothing should be done about it - the alleged cure "will only make the problem worse." Obfuscate it by creating straw men.
The final step in this political strategy is when the problem becomes a dominant campaign issue. Even those who have denied its legitimacy all along have no choice but to address it. This final step is some combination of blaming the victims, and blaming those who have complained about the problem for not already having solved it.
Here is the sequence applied to stagnation of the middle class.
Step one: Deny it as a problem. "America is the land of the free; equal opportunity for everybody."
Step two: Okay, income inequality exists, it always has, and it is the "natural order of things." Reaffirm that "those who work hard and have marketable talents deserve to be rewarded." Dismiss decline of the middle class as merely "envy of the successful."
Step three: But what about those who work full time at low paid jobs that somebody must do to make this economy function? What about those who lose jobs because of international agreements that ship jobs overseas or south of the Rio Grande, dragging down wages instead of uplifting everybody?
At this stage, opponents of action argue that proposed remedies would make the problem worse. Insist that progressive taxation would discourage the "job creators" from producing. Economic stimulus to increase construction would "break the federal budget."
This is the stage where straw men are created. Progressive taxation would "punish the successful" and discourage "job creators" from hiring. "A higher minimum wage would increase unemployment."
"Small businesses can't afford it." With a functional Congress, politicians serious about this issue could work through it in such a way as to exempt "mom and pop" operations. Laws could be designed to ensure that employees of big box stores would not have to go on food stamps.
The most ridiculous straw man of all is that "equality of income is an unrealistic goal." Of course it is not realistic - nobody says it is. Perfect equality is not, and never has been, the goal. The problem is that only a very few Americans at the very top have shared in the nation's increased productivity, resulting in stagnation and decline of the middle class. Such a maldistribution of income and wealth is not only unfair to those who work hard, follow the rules, and contribute to society, but is a major factor in the slow recovery from the Great Recession.
This brings us to the final step, when even the detractors and deniers like Mr. Bush, Mr. Romney, Senator Cruz, and the rest of "em recognize the issue as a real problem and admit something should be done about it.
Blame the victims - "they don't work hard enough," or "they should get more education." And, of course, blame the president who has been trying to address this issue.
Those who have fought the president, while blaming him for middle class stagnation, have proposed no solutions beyond economic snake oil, the failed "trickle down economics."
But hold on; they promise solutions in the future.
We'll see.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
Last week when I was contemplating my next topic, I wake up to NPR's "Morning Edition," and the first thing I hear is Mara Liasson rambling on about Mitt Romney's discovery of American income inequality. And blaming it on - guess who? - President Barack Obama. Bingo - next topic.
Mr. Romney's hypocrisy should be enough to produce outrage in anybody to the Left of Mr. Limbaugh. Mitt Romney - the presidential candidate of 2012 who seriously believed that concern over the increasing concentration of American income and wealth among the top fraction of one percent of Americans was nothing more than envy of the wealthy.
No, Mr. Romney - people don't care if you have more houses than you can count. They are concerned about making payments on their own houses, and how they can achieve middle class status, or maintain it if they are already there.
So Mr. Romney, Karl Rove, and their minions express shock, shock that people just didn't understand their message. They just need to refine their message, they say.
So at last, Mr. Romney sees increasing inequality of income and wealth, and stagnation of American middle class, as an issue. He is joined in this chorus by GOP presidential hopefuls including Jeb Bush, and even Tea Party favorite, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. And, of course, they blame Obama; never mind that the same politicians who blame the president have fought, and continue to fight, the president on every proposal he has made to address this issue.
This is a perfect example of a predictable, repetitive political strategy employed on any number of public policy issues, including access to affordable health care, global warming and climate change, instability of financial institutions, environmental pollution, and income inequality and stagnation of the middle class.
Step one is denial. The problem "doesn't exist," except perhaps in the minds of liberals, mainly Democrats. It's just a "conspiracy" drummed up to get political support for some undefined agenda.
Step two is when the problem becomes severe enough to be recognized by those initially denying its existence. It's then dismissed as "the natural order of things." Economic Darwinism, inevitable market forces, - "nothing can be done about it."
Eventually the problem becomes so acute as to create public pressure to do something about it. The next step then is to insist that even though something could be done about it, nothing should be done about it - the alleged cure "will only make the problem worse." Obfuscate it by creating straw men.
The final step in this political strategy is when the problem becomes a dominant campaign issue. Even those who have denied its legitimacy all along have no choice but to address it. This final step is some combination of blaming the victims, and blaming those who have complained about the problem for not already having solved it.
Here is the sequence applied to stagnation of the middle class.
Step one: Deny it as a problem. "America is the land of the free; equal opportunity for everybody."
Step two: Okay, income inequality exists, it always has, and it is the "natural order of things." Reaffirm that "those who work hard and have marketable talents deserve to be rewarded." Dismiss decline of the middle class as merely "envy of the successful."
Step three: But what about those who work full time at low paid jobs that somebody must do to make this economy function? What about those who lose jobs because of international agreements that ship jobs overseas or south of the Rio Grande, dragging down wages instead of uplifting everybody?
At this stage, opponents of action argue that proposed remedies would make the problem worse. Insist that progressive taxation would discourage the "job creators" from producing. Economic stimulus to increase construction would "break the federal budget."
This is the stage where straw men are created. Progressive taxation would "punish the successful" and discourage "job creators" from hiring. "A higher minimum wage would increase unemployment."
"Small businesses can't afford it." With a functional Congress, politicians serious about this issue could work through it in such a way as to exempt "mom and pop" operations. Laws could be designed to ensure that employees of big box stores would not have to go on food stamps.
The most ridiculous straw man of all is that "equality of income is an unrealistic goal." Of course it is not realistic - nobody says it is. Perfect equality is not, and never has been, the goal. The problem is that only a very few Americans at the very top have shared in the nation's increased productivity, resulting in stagnation and decline of the middle class. Such a maldistribution of income and wealth is not only unfair to those who work hard, follow the rules, and contribute to society, but is a major factor in the slow recovery from the Great Recession.
This brings us to the final step, when even the detractors and deniers like Mr. Bush, Mr. Romney, Senator Cruz, and the rest of "em recognize the issue as a real problem and admit something should be done about it.
Blame the victims - "they don't work hard enough," or "they should get more education." And, of course, blame the president who has been trying to address this issue.
Those who have fought the president, while blaming him for middle class stagnation, have proposed no solutions beyond economic snake oil, the failed "trickle down economics."
But hold on; they promise solutions in the future.
We'll see.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
