creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop
9 Feb 2012
Big Brother Is ‘Sharing'

My, how you've changed, Big Brother. What happened to the sourpuss in "1984," George Orwell's grim … Read More.

7 Feb 2012
What Komen Affair Means for November

The blowup at Susan G. Komen for the Cure set off a political alarm that Republicans dare not ignore. The … Read More.

2 Feb 2012
Immigration and ‘Obamacare' Join as Issue

Two of the hottest topics on the political circuit are illegal immigration and "Obamacare." They … Read More.

Government Protects the Little Guy

Share Comment

Over a century ago, William Jennings Bryan presided over mass rallies of mostly middle-class Americans angry about economic inequities. The tea party activists gathered in Washington last weekend for Glenn Beck's event shared similar concerns. Both leaders framed their populist mission in Christian terms.

But Bryan's people knew the source of their insecurity. Beck's don't.

Bryan's populists blamed unregulated banks and industrial mammoths for oppressing the middle class on down. They wanted government to protect them from marauding monopolies.

Beck's populists see government as the marauder. Government, in his rhetoric, is the bully harassing individuals and business alike.

Populist sentiment against the business elite helped get Republican Theodore Roosevelt elected president in 1904. (He had moved up from the vice presidency with the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901.) But Beck slams Roosevelt for his reformer vision. He froths over Roosevelt's belief that the pursuit of great wealth should benefit the wider community as well as rich people as "the cancer that is eating at America."

It's always dangerous to compare periods separated by more than 100 years. Back in the late 1890s, the government was tiny, and the big corporate powers were free to trample workers and small businesses. Standard Oil and the future U.S. Steel had bigger budgets than the U.S. government. (By the way, Standard Oil et al. did not really favor "free enterprise." They favored their continuation as competition-killing monopolies.)

In sharp contrast, today's populists don't see the recent economic meltdown as the product of the financial industry allowed to run amok. The same folk agonize over growing deficits and see the widening gap between the super rich and everyone else — yet still oppose a modest tax hike on the top few percent.

In one breath, the tea partiers rail against the bank bailouts. In the next, they object to efforts in Washington to re-regulate the banks and make future bailouts unnecessary. And they see their political home in a Republican Party that tirelessly serves the interests of the Wall Street princes and the industries that dine on taxpayer dollars — for instance, health care.

It's hard to remember that Wall Street was rather sympathetic to the surging Democrats only two years ago.

During the presidential campaign, the party took in 70 percent of Wall Street's political contributions. Republicans are now receiving 68 percent. (Always cynical Wall Street is betting on a GOP win.)

The financiers turned on Democrats as the Obama administration sought to re-regulate the financial industry. They denounce a proposed return to the top marginal rates of the Clinton-era as a gross injustice. They indignantly defend the ludicrous loophole that lets hedge and private-equity-fund managers pay taxes at a lower rate than the police who guard their mansions.

Private-equity tycoon Stephen A. Schwarzman recently likened the administration's attempt to close the loophole to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Hedge-fund manager Daniel S. Loeb angrily wrote his investors that "this country's core founding principles included non-punitive taxation, constitutionally guaranteed protections against persecution of the minority and an inexorable right of self-determination." Who's arguing with that?

These guys are not necessarily "conservative.'' They generally don't care a fig about the social issues. Some, like Loeb, are registered Democrats.

But the name of their game is to amass the highest number of billions. Nothing is every enough. Anyone who slows the play is their enemy. And these days, it's the Republican Party that can best help them rack up their scores. (What's good for the country is generally not item No. 1 on the priority list.)

The plutocracy hated and feared Bryan, especially after he won his first (of three) Democratic presidential nominations. In 1896, Republican operative Mark Hanna went directly to John D. Rockefeller and said, "We need money to defeat Bryan." Rockefeller wrote a check.

One would think that the populists who lament the alleged decline of their economic status — and America's real economic decline — might want to stop the big players from repeating their excesses. Amazingly, they don't.

To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM


Comments

7 Comments | Post Comment
Lady, you have to send me some of what you've been smoking. Government protects "the little guy"? Unless you want to classify Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Ayres, Christopher Dodd, and their ilk as "little guys", government most certainly does NOT protect the little guy. Government assaults, robs, and quite often insults and scorns "the little guy". I ought to know. I AM one of "the little guys". You need some long term therapy and you need it quick. If you really believe that this government is, in any way, committed to helping "the little guy", I feel sorry for you and for those you hold dear.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Jobe
Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:54 PM
Yes, it would be nice to believe that "government protects the little guy," but, like any utopian ideal, the reality is seldom achieved, and then only briefly.
The truth of the matter is that "government" is not an altruistic entity. It's made up of people who have various views concerning the way things ought to be and can be utterly ruthless in imposing those views on the country--and that's as true of Democrats as Republicans.
Take Obama's health care disaster, for example.
No doubt Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had the best of intentions, but they hesitated not a moment to finagle, scheme, bribe, strong-arm, and lie, lie, lie, to impose their view on a country that wanted nothing to do with it. And far from helping "the little guy," their scheme is already raising the costs of health insurance on us and doctors are posting open letters in their waiting rooms basically saying they're not going to be able to afford to keep treating people under the coming rules. Cap-and-trade is another example, as were the "bailouts" and "stimulus" that did a lot for unions and public employees but cost the rest of us untold billions.
Big Government, regardless of the party in power, is no more the friend of ordinary Americans than is Big Business. Democrats cater to powerful unions--to the detriment, for example, of the people of California--the same way Republicans are said to cater to businesses. Power tends to corrupt, and it doesn't matter at all what the philosophies are of those so corrupted.
The best we can hope for is that all the various powers, government, unions, Democrats, Republicans, and corporations, all engage each other in mortal combat, leaving the rest of us alone
Comment: #2
Posted by: Henry Miller
Fri Sep 3, 2010 7:19 AM
Jobe and Henry; just two more examples of the efficiency of the lies being told to get voters to the republican .levers' in the voting booth. Ms Harrop is attempting to enlighten readers on what Fox Beck Boehner et al are up to. When righties re-assume control in November, we'll be headed once again into further depths of what Reagan started 30 years ago, and continues with every new age republican administration. If you want to end up where we were pre-revolutionary war, where the 'big corporate oligarchs' are in control, just stay under your Rupert Murdoch/John Boehner designed basket, and believing that people like Ms Harrop are wrong. Right-on Ms Harrop, there are not near enough journalists, politicians, or other voters telling the truth about what the Beck bunch are lying about and what they are up to.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Frank Faucheux
Sat Sep 4, 2010 9:21 AM
The two previous posters said NOT ONE word disproving what Harrop wrote. But then that is typical of conservatives.
In fact, belief in Tea Party type conservatism must be a form of mental illness; which would explain why the use of God and socialism as propaganda tools by elite wealthy corporate conservatives have had two hundred years of success in conning many average Americans into believing so many things that are not true.
Conservative corporate wealthy and their minions worship at the altar of "free markets," but free market capitalism are just polite words for corporate fascism, which occurs when government is controlled by wealthy conservatives and puts the interests of corporations and their owners ahead of the rights of average citizens.
Conservative elite keep their hold on government power by the method of divide and conquer and campaign contributions. In the past industrialists used immigrants as strikebreakers to keep wages low and break unions. In the present they spread propaganda to discredit the government, the media, unions, schools and teachers, scientists, courts, and basically all institutions that have made America great – but stand in the way of maximizing their income.
For example, between 1990 and 2010 OpenSecrets.org reports that 75% of Oil & Gas industry contributions and 67% of pharmaceutical manufacturing contributions went to Republicans.
Since 1980 these methods have proven highly successful. The Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_after-tax_income.pdf) lists the following changes in income by quintile:
Between 1980 and 2007 average after-tax income changed as follows: The top 1% of taxpayers had income increase from $339,200 to $1,319,700; the top 20% saw increases from $98,700 to $198,300; but the lowest 80% of tax payers saw a much smaller rise, from $55,800 to $77,700.
Thus, socialism for wealthy conservatives continues unabated in America.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Barney Murrell
Sat Sep 4, 2010 9:22 AM
WOW What a cool aid drinker
what you not understand is that America does not want, nor was it founded on Collectivism.
To paraphrase Churchill - A sincere love of equality is no excuse for forcing millions of humble folk into total national and personal failure.
Those who oppose Obama for reasons of political beliefs are less bigoted than those who voted for because of his color.
Comment: #5
Posted by: William
Mon Sep 6, 2010 6:00 AM
William, are you speaking of the 'collectivists' being served up the kool-aide of the anti-government, tea-party, Beck lemmings?
Comment: #6
Posted by: Frank Faucheux
Mon Sep 6, 2010 8:52 PM
William, are you speaking of the 'collectivists' being served up the kool-aide of the anti-government, tea-party, Beck lemmings?
Comment: #7
Posted by: Frank Faucheux
Mon Sep 6, 2010 8:52 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Froma Harrop
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roger Simon
Roger SimonUpdated 10 Feb 2012
Susan EstrichUpdated 10 Feb 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 10 Feb 2012

6 Jul 2010 How Much Cyber-Parenting Must Schools Do?

5 May 2009 Better Service in Bad Times?

23 Feb 2010 Why Evan Bayh Should Not Jump Ship