This is just ridiculous:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Income inequality is out, “ladders of opportunity” is in.
Eager to dispel claims that President Barack Obama is engaging in “class warfare” as he heads into his State of the Union address next week, the White House is de-emphasizing phrases focusing on economic disparity and turning instead to messages about creating paths of opportunity for the poor and middle class.
The adjustment reflects an awareness that Obama’s earlier language put him at risk of being perceived as divisive and exposed him to criticism that his rhetoric was exploiting the gap between haves and have-nots.
The White House can choose to emphasize whatever they want, but the idea that the president should seek to avoid being seen as divisive because he’s engaging in “class warfare” is a bad joke. That’s fighting on the Republicans’ turf using the language of Frank Luntz. When the day comes that the president calls for rich people’s heads on pikes, then he’ll be divisive. Until that time, he’s merely pointing out that the wealth disparity in this country has grown to an historic level, and something ought to be done about it.
Reason no, 83,382 that Democrats always get lower turnout than predicted at elections & eventually folding hardcore democrats away from politics altogether.
is terrible, but smart.
I assume all verbiage/memes are now carefully focus-group tested.
About as smart as recycling “Hope and Change” and praying that it works one more time.
“Ladders of opportunity” is exactly the same message Obama has been carrying since he was elected in 2008. Except now too many can see that the damn ladders don’t exist outside Obama’s head.
Obama no doubt sees his own life through the ladders of opportunity frame.
I’m sure he does. Ladders put in place by the New Deal Democrats that Obama has no use for and were tossed out as obsolete by the DEM and GOP neo-liberals.
Way to take a clear political winner, something that clear majorities are concerned about, and replace it with pablum. I just don’t get it.
Downright pathetic. I couldn’t believe this when I saw it. Well I could, but I kept thinking, “Seriously?”
Speaking of inequality and taxes, I just did mine. Single guy with no children and no deductions except for myself. My federal tax rate is only 16.5%. With no damn deductions. State tax rate is 5%. This is “Taxed Enough Already”?
I’m always glad I have an income to be taxed on.
When you know deep down in your heart that “those people” might benefit by 1/100th of a penny of your tax dollars, it is indeed taxed enough already.
Hatred sure is a great political motivator.
I always kept hoping for a Presidential FUCK YOU John Boehner…now, I want an “Angry Black President” kicking ass and forgetting their names…
So, you want President Richard Sherman then?
I’d prefer someone more like General Sherman, myself. (In a political sense, of course. Y’never know who’s reading this shit anymore and I don’t want to hear little jackboots clomp-clomp-clomping up the stairs outside my door.) Burn a swath right through the “Georgia On My Mind” of the RatPublican party. But NOOOOOOoooo…
We got the DNC instead.
Do Not Cope.
Nicde.
AG
P.S. So…Booman. Exactly how would a president calling for rich people’s heads on pikes be “divisive” given the overwhelmingly anti-one percent sentiment percolating up through the non-wealthy classes of the U.S. over the past several years?
Divisive?” Well, yeah…I guess. Say 90% on one side and 10% on the other, given the plainly expressed desire of most 9% upper middle class hustlers to move up to the 1% just as soon as they can steal enough to do so.
Divisive? Hmmmmm….
OOOOhhhh…you mean “divisive” in terms of the PermaGov’s desire to continue the American Dream farce as far as they can run it.
I get it.
Nevermind.
Yore friend…
Emily Litella
I’d rather read the finished speech than let AP set the terms of my outrage.
That’s a good point, but I don’t think it does any harm to join in the outcry. If Obama is feeling pressured to remove references to income equality, then let’s see if we can apply an equal or greater amount of pressure to leave them in. It’s way past time to go on the offensive here, and if Obama isn’t willing to take the lead then we’ll just have to find someone who will.
Hey, I’m no Obamabot, but he did say that we have to make him do what we want him to do.
Being Emperor is a bitch, especially in Rome. Very little latitude to move one way or another without pissing off the patricians who own and operate everything.
Not a good tactic with the ever willing to compromise with the right wing in the West Wing.
What?
You think the AP doesn’t abide by talking points?
Such innocence!!!
They got PermaGov bosses too.
bet on it.
AG
Exactly. “Ladders of opportunity” acknowledges the fact that the vast majority of Americans are still economically aspirational. Dwelling on the negative facts of income inequality and stagnant social mobility is a sure fire fuck-up rhetorically speaking.
As long as the policy prescriptions – raising the minimum wage, increasing student loan support, increased funding for pre-school education, increased support for those without health insurance – address income inequality, then co-opting the GOP rhetoric to clothe progressive ends will just drive the GOP further insane.
And you can denigrate Luntz all you want, but he was able to sell shitty policy with resonant words. Why not do the same to sell better policy?
Luntz admits that he’s now out of words.
Have to completely disagree with you on this one. “Ladders of opportunity” isn’t resonant and Obama has no interest in all those half-baked liberal policies that would only make income/wealth inequality slightly less unequal.
Progressive top-down change is a myth and verbiage rarely matters before a movement starts to resonate.
Occupy has the right idea, the right verbiage, and only needs to be charged up a little before it can regain momentum, in my opinion.
I see inequality becoming more of an issue in movies and music and I don’t think it is going to be stamped out…at least not in the way the oligarchs want to stamp it out.
The question is do we let neo-libreal shitheels co-opt the inequality issue, or do we keep it for ourselves and shape public thinking about it.
Obama can talk about ladders and all of that, and the neo-liberals will try to grab that message and make it about structural bullshit (see, Brooks, David), and it is the progressive responsibility to grab that message and expand on it in terms of the elites fucking EVERYONE over who isn’t in the .01%.
So, we can cry and complain about Obama not being a real progressive (surprised? wake up if so) or we can be the grassroots change that we all know is required.
I guess after awhile I just get tired seeing people lament our situation, instead of trying to actively change it.
Obama is not a savior, he is not a progressive, and he’s perfectly fine being rich and powerful. Duh.
That said, Rmoney or McCain or Cruz wouldn’t even dare mention anything remotely close to inequality.
That is our fucking opportunity, thanks to Occupy and other non-SeriousTM people, to take that message and run.
Blaming Obama for our lack of activity is just more passing the buck. Period.
Not “crying and complaining” that Obama isn’t a progressive. Stating that he’s wrong for the health and well-being of Americans and the planet. If that’s not stated publicly and loudly, it gives the elites a pass to take more.
As you know FDR wasn’t a progressive — but that didn’t shut up union leaders and members from making demands. Half of those on the left preach that we should clap louder for any POS Democratic politician. The other half preaches that we should be silent and form bowling leagues. (OWS was crushed like a bug.) Nothing wrong with organizing in the trenches but it’s not enough without critiques of those that hold the levers of power (and Obama is the most powerful man on earth regardless of what all his apologists claim) and leaders. Any such leaders won’t be heard outside their little bubble groups by the wider populace as long as the wider populace doesn’t hear specific criticisms of elected politicians. And there must be intersections between the two.
Elizabeth Warren articulates real problems and solutions better than any other Democratic politician — and wouldn’t be in the Senate if lefties hadn’t listened and responded to her. More Warrens and more radical Warrens are needed. I get that you’re singing from the Chris Hedges songbook and I don’t totally disagree. However, revolutions without vision, leaders, and consensus are high risk for chaos without positive change.
Right.
Revolutions need leaders.
I’d argue that 99% of all Democratic politicians would be piss-poor revolution leaders, because hey, they’re at the top, they don’t want revolution, they want the government as-is, because they’re in control.
I’m ultra radical in terms of politics, and I read Chris Hedges, although I find him to be a little depressing so I do it in short bursts.
We need leaders, and leaders don’t wait for top-down change.
My own policy would be to use the Democratic party as much as is possible, while creating the grassroots organization that can upend the PermaGov, as AG would call it.
And upending the PermaGov requires people to worry less about what Obama or any other stooge the oligarchs find useful has to say about inequality, or reality, etc, and start working on what needs to happen now.
Blogging helps, as it gives people a lot of ideas, and a “marketplace” in which they can see how well or bad their ideas are. Commenting helps just as much. But, the outrage and annoyance and hopelessness that comes with being disappointed with Obama isn’t constructive, and can itself lead to stagnation and a continuation of the status quo.
People tell me all the time that revolution is dangerous, not a very fun place to live or be, and that it isn’t all democratic reconstruction. Well, no shit.
That said, as long as people try to hold others accountable – others who don’t want to change the status quo – they don’t hold themselves accountable to what they can do.
Seriously, every single oligarchical piece of trash is mortal and only has money and power we allow them to have.
And they don’t want us to know it. Obama doesn’t want us to know it, nor pretty much anyone in PermaGov. They sew the seeds of their destruction, and they don’t want us watering the ground.
We need to water the ground.
Obama is irrelevant in the long run, as are most PermaGov stooges.
This isn’t a good forum for this type of discussion. It’s too large and far ranging for short and simplified comments.
For example, you went off on Democratic politicians not being suitable leaders for a revolution when I never suggested, much less thought, that they are. OTOH, the current round of grassroots protests practically shun the idea of leaders. The civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements had lots of leaders. A few of whom went on to become elected officeholders and generally have been more honorable and decent than those they replaced.
Well, my response isn’t just a response to you, it is a greater explanation of my view. So, the comment about Democratic politicians and leaders is just building off your statement about needing leaders to avoid chaos.
“Not “crying and complaining” that Obama isn’t a progressive. Stating that he’s wrong for the health and well-being of Americans and the planet.”
There is zero difference between your rhetoric and that of your average TEA Partier here. Pushing our President where he fails us- helpful. Generally declaring Obama our enemy- false and not helpful.
Here in California, we’re having major fights with Governor Brown on the budget he just proposed. I’m determined that we will get the Legislature to pass a more progressive budget, and we’ll make Jerry sign it. But am I and all other effective progressives going to make sure Brown gets re-elected in November? You bet we will.
“As you know FDR wasn’t a progressive — but that didn’t shut up union leaders and members from making demands.”
Well, sure they made demands. People were starving and unemployment was at 25% two years in a row. I agree that we should continue making demands in 2014. As far as defining whether FDR was a progressive- well, he did an awfully awesome impression of a progressive President.
“Elizabeth Warren articulates real problems and solutions better than any other Democratic politician — and wouldn’t be in the Senate if lefties hadn’t listened and responded to her.”
And she probably wouldn’t be in the Senate if the DSCC hadn’t jumped fast to recruit her as their prime candidate. I agree that our strong support for Elizabeth helped lead the DSCC straight to her. Yes, the DSCC sometimes goes centrist on us in their candidate recruiting, so we should give credit where credit’s due. Carrots and sticks.
Are you seriously that stupid and blind?
You wrote “…he’s wrong for the health and well-being of Americans and the planet.” You didn’t claim these things of a particular policy position of the President; you claimed Obama IS these broad things. That’s TEA Party talk.
I respect you; thanks for considering returning my respect.
Chicago school.
political fear of the right.
same as ever.
This language was used against Di Blasio by Joe Lhota in the NYC race. He indicted that talking about such things was divisive. Talking about was allegedly divisive, not the actual occurrence of income inequality. You see how that worked out for him.
yup and now diblasio can fellate Israel without a care.
Better than fellating Jamie Dimon.
Is there a difference?
Dimon’s existence has likely caused less direct death and poverty than the apartheid practiced by Israel, but ultimately…not really that much of a substantial difference.
An oligarch by any other name would oppress just as terribly.
Emphasis on “direct”
The battleground states this fall are not NYC.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Obamacare was right even though we lose the Senate — Jay Carney
The White House communication staff is abominable for Democrats.
It’s almost as if the White House strategy is to lose the Congress in 2014 so that Democrats can’t be blamed for anything in 2016. Who’s putting what in the bottled water in the West Wing? And why are they so damned afraid of actually winning with a strong progressive message?
I’m about to give up on Kay Hagan. Now she’s for the Keystone XL pipeline, which has no direct relationship to NC at all.
In policy and communication style haven’t noticed any change in the national Democratic movers and shakers in almost twenty years. Less than twenty years because I bought into the Clinton schtick in 1992. Had I paid more attention back then, may have noticed sooner that they had become the Washington Generals of politics.
Given how fast they rolled up OFA after the ’08 election, it makes one wonder, doesn’t it? Tim Dickinson, I think, wrote about the dormant OFA in either ’09 or ’10. It’s obvious they hate outside pressure. Why do you think they do so much to contain it?
What wuss! Does Michelle keep his balls in a jar?
The better question:
Do the oligarchs have our balls (and vaginas) in a jar?
Oligarchs only have the wealth and power that 99.9% of the population let them have. See, France, 1793. They’re mere mortals and their blood most certainly flows.
If we really expect top-down change, we really are hoping for change. And that is entirely fucking useless.
Here’s a thought, let’s wait to freak out about what’s in the speech once it’s actually delivered.
We have no idea the accuracy of the anonymous source or the AP reporting.
Freaking out about it now is nothing but a distraction.
99% of politics in the public sphere is nothing but a distraction. The 1% is done behind steel doors in secret locations at the behest of the 1%.
thanks for the observation
Maybe some of us are because we see what his former speechwriter(Favreau), for one, is saying(or hinting at) on Twitter.
former
He’s gonna cut Social Security any day now!
You do not talk about oligarchy.
Agreed.
Don’t talk about oligarchy.
Don black masks and roll out the guillotines. They’ll speak for everyone with their sharp blade and continued use.
Oh, hi NSA stooge! Hope your extra crumbs are comforting!