• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Robbin’ Gore was at it again. At the third and final debate, he could
not go for an hour and a half without mentioning those wealthy
1-percenters. He wove his vision of an empyrean United States with
themes of perfect excellence in American schools, universal pre-school
for every toddler in the country, prescription medicine benefits for
Medicare recipients and a national health-care system of cosmic
proportions. Then he sewed it all together by the sinew of the rich.

It is Gore’s chronic attacks on those wealthy 1-percenters that
continually stuns me. They have been at ground zero throughout his
campaign, the privileged few that Gore believes would benefit far too
greatly by Bush’s tax plan. This is almost a sin to Gore. He has
repeatedly brought up the wealthy elite in every campaign appearance I
have had the discomfort of viewing, and from the sound of it he has
probably talked about them at every appearance I fortunately missed.
The problem I have with this is that the only possible purpose served by
denigrating the rich is the incitement of class resentment.

This is not just an irresponsible proposition, but a dangerous one.

Every time Gore demonizes the extraordinary successful in our country
his underlying political views shine through. His derision suggests to
the average person that the very wealthy have not contributed to our
country and that they do not deserve all that they’ve earned. This view
not only disregards an incredible history of civic and charitable gifts
bestowed by the wealthy upon communities across the United States, but
disavows virtually every job that was ever created by our capitalist
system. To further the insult, Gore does not even acknowledge that this
very small percentage of Americans currently pay more than half of the
federal tax base and in effect are subsidizing the millions of Americans
who pay no federal taxes at all.

Somewhere behind every fortune in America literally lies the blood,
sweat and tears of someone who worked hard to pursue their dreams, and
it makes no difference whether that blood, sweat and tears was expended
last year, 10 years ago, or a hundred years ago. And it defies reason
to suggest that the prosperity of our country was achieved by any other
measure than the hard work and ingenuity of millions of American at
every level of society.

Yet Gore is so enamored with this socialist vision of equality and
fairness that if it takes a repeated appeal to the base emotions of the
struggling classes, he will do so. To this end, he portrays the wealthy
as those who have gained at the expense of everyone else and as such are
unworthy of their fortunes, and he works continually to bolster class
envy and resentment among his targeted voters.

This method of politicking so closely resembles the theories
expounded by Karl Marx that it is impossible to ignore the similarities,
unless, of course, one doesn’t know who Karl Marx is. Those who do,
however, know that Marx’s idea of a utopian, classless society is an
unsustainable philosophy that has been repeatedly tried and repeatedly
failed over this last century. Not only is it horribly ineffectual, it
has universally brought unparalleled atrocity upon those subjected to
it. And I’m not even mentioning its inherent opposition to freedom.

But Gore continues to pursue a utopian ideal, and was once again
patronizing susceptible Americans by creating an illusion of the duty
and rightness of extensive governmental support and by deriding the
success of the wealthy and the unjustness of the capitalist system.
During this latest debate, Gore not only engaged in his hallmark attack
on those 1-percenters, but worked to illustrate the great inequality of
Bush’s tax plan by actually bringing the audience into it. He
pontificated that under Bush’s tax plan, the tax cut of a single,
wealthy 1-percenter would amount to more than the combined total of the
tax cuts of everyone in the audience — assuming they were all solid
middle class.

Did you get that?

He essentially said that the rich don’t deserve a tax cut because a
tax cut to one of them would represent more money than the combined tax
cuts of a 100 average, working Americans, and you working class
Americans don’t want that.

To Robbin’ Gore, it’s bad enough that the rich have all this money,
but it’s worse if the government can’t take most of it.

And if he’s elected, you can be fairly certain that’s what he’ll
attempt to do.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.