The Other Stupid "Rick": "Middle Class" = "Marxism Talk"

[Foolmewunz]

The Other Stupid "Rick": "Middle Class" = "Marxism Talk"

The quadrennial Stupid Contest is looking good. Little Ricky Santorum has been tangling his tongue around his saddle oxfords for the last couple of weeks as he starts to gear up for 2016. I presume he wasn't content with conceding the Dumbest Rick title to Perry for the coming festivities.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...um_the_term_middle_class_is_marxism_talk.html

Does anyone else find the actual way he worded it as something out of the turn of the century? The 19th to 20th. "That's Marxism talk!" I think he saw The Music Man one time too many and thinks that's folksy?

 

[Biscuit]

What a bizarre thing for a millionaire to say. It's almost as if he is completely out of touch with life for most Americans.

 

[DavidJames]

He was one of the last Republican's standing during the 2012 primary. He is a mainstream Republican and very much in touch and supported by a significant number of Republicans.

 

[Ladewig]

I watched the video. It is so bizarre as to sound surreal.

"Don't use the term the other side uses. [snip] Since when in America do we have classes? Since when in America are people stuck in areas or defined places called a class? That’s Marxism talk."​

Doesn't Marxism assert that there is no middle class? That the only two classes are the working class and the means-of-production-owning class?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

In Marxism what we would call the middle class is often called the petite bourgeoisie.

My pet peeve with the term is that nowadays everyone calls themselves middle class, from incomes of $25,000 to $250,000. And then there are the perennial, vague whines that politicians are "throwing the middle class under the bus" which used to be more of an anti-social welfare or anti-free trade thing, but now is often heard from anti-corporatists.

 

[Foolmewunz]

He was one of the last Republican's standing during the 2012 primary. He is a mainstream Republican and very much in touch and supported by a significant number of Republicans.

I sure hope so. Rick Santorum is only "mainstream" if you use it as a relative term, e.g. compared to the other nutbars the primaries attract. And I fear that what he's doing here is moving to the nutbar wing, trying to attract the early coverage from the "pundits" at Fox by calling for an end to divisiveness by, well, being divisive.

"That's Marxism Talk!" What nonsense.

 

[Foolmewunz]

In Marxism what we would call the middle class is often called the petite bourgeoisie.

How's your French?

My pet peeve with the term is that nowadays everyone calls themselves middle class, from incomes of $25,000 to $250,000. And then there are the perennial, vague whines that politicians are "throwing the middle class under the bus" which used to be more of an anti-social welfare or anti-free trade thing, but now is often heard from anti-corporatists.

It's the constant "play to the middle" thing in US politics. The swing vote is seen as consisting of the Great Undecided, who are somewhere in that rather large economic range you mention. If you can get them ALL thinking "it's the economy, stupid" and also get them ALL identifying as one huge "class", then it's only a matter of convincing that "class" that you're on their side. Rick's play is somewhat different but much of the same same. Convince them that there is no such class and that Huey Long was right, "Every Man a King".

 

[L.Y.S.]

Why are some conservatives so hell bent on destroying the middle class? Do billionaires want no one to buy their products?

 

[steve s]

Don't use the term the other side uses

The GOPers use the term all the time. If both sides use it then how do you know whose term it is and who is borrowing it?

Steve S

 

[gnome]

It is funny for the GOP to speak of disregarding the "middle class" term, as so much of their rhetoric evokes the Normal Rockwell small town with a working fathers, stay at home moms, house with a picket fence etc. They talk of farmers as if they all mostly resemble Clark Kent's foster parents. Isn't this the fabled "Real America"?

 

[Bikewer]

The tactic in the last few election cycles for the Republicans seems to be to spout the rightest-of-the-right-wing ideology during the primary phase, to appeal to the hard-core "base" who are the only ones that show up for primaries anyway.
So, all the "social issues" and "culture wars" and other extreme rhetoric gets floated.

Then, when a candidate actually emerges, he/she must immediately forget about everything said during the primaries and "move to the center" so as to have some hope of actually getting elected.
Hoping of course that the voting public will simply forget about all the extreme rhetoric uttered just months ago...
Sadly, this seems to happen more often than not....

 

[newyorkguy]

The tactic in the last few election cycles for the Republicans seems to be to spout the rightest-of-the-right-wing ideology during the primary phase, to appeal to the hard-core "base" who are the only ones that show up for primaries anyway.
So, all the "social issues" and "culture wars" and other extreme rhetoric gets floated.

Then, when a candidate actually emerges, he/she must immediately forget about everything said during the primaries and "move to the center" so as to have some hope of actually getting elected.
Hoping of course that the voting public will simply forget about all the extreme rhetoric uttered just months ago...
Sadly, this seems to happen more often than not....

That's very true and don't think there aren't people in the Republican Party who are very well aware of it. And don't think the hard-core right in the party isn't aware of it either. They're pushing a particular ideology. The primary system gives them a way to get their candidates on the final ballot. They're ideologues.

If it comes down to a choice of-
1. Selecting a candidate with the correct ideology who may not be able to win in November, or
2. Selecting a more moderate candidate, with broader appeal, who might be able to win in November-

They select No. 1 every time.

It's an argument in favor of going back to when the Bosses ran the political parties.

 

[elbe]

That's very true and don't think there aren't people in the Republican Party who are very well aware of it. And don't think the hard-core right in the party isn't aware of it either. They're pushing a particular ideology. The primary system gives them a way to get their candidates on the final ballot. They're ideologues.

If it comes down to a choice of-
1. Selecting a candidate with the correct ideology who may not be able to win in November, or
2. Selecting a more moderate candidate, with broader appeal, who might be able to win in November-

They select No. 1 every time.

It's an argument in favor of going back to when the Bosses ran the political parties.

Eh? Isn't there only a sample size of two? Is that really enough to draw real conclusions over?

For that matter I'm not sure McCain ane Romney weren't possibly the more moderates of the major GOP candidates. Sure they tacked hard right but they weren't as fringe as Huckabee or Santorum.

 

[DavidJames]

Eh? Isn't there only a sample size of two? Is that really enough to draw real conclusions over?

That covers 3 election cycles and 12 years. yeah, the sample size nails it.

For that matter I'm not sure McCain ane Romney weren't possibly the more moderates of the major GOP candidates. Sure they tacked hard right but they weren't as fringe as Huckabee or Santorum.

Yes, they were the more moderate candidates, prior to the debates. Then the crazy hard right wing dictates the issues and even moderate candidates must toe the line or being tossed aside. While the Republican party thinks Americans are too dumb to realize it, enough aren't to see the last Republican standing is as steadfast as silly putty in his beliefs.

 

[Mark6]

What a bizarre thing for a millionaire to say. It's almost as if he is completely out of touch with life for most Americans.

For a millionaire, to deny existence of classes and to claim "We are all in this together!" is not bizarre at all. Self-serving and blatantly false, but quite rational. It is in millionaire's interests for proles to see him as "just one of us". (Whether he succeeds in it, is a different question.)

But I am pretty sure Santorum is not a millionaire, or at least was not two years ago. I recall reading about candidates' net worth during Republican primary. Santorum's net worth was the lowest of the bunch -- he was one of very few Senators (ex-Senators by then) who are not millionaires.

 

[elbe]

That covers 3 election cycles and 12 years. yeah, the sample size nails it.

Are you counting Bush? Doesn't his win sort of counter the idea that the "correct ideology" candidate can't win?

Yes, they were the more moderate candidates, prior to the debates. Then the crazy hard right wing dictates the issues and even moderate candidates must toe the line or being tossed aside. While the Republican party thinks Americans are too dumb to realize it, enough aren't to see the last Republican standing is as steadfast as silly putty in his beliefs.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you it still seems that there must be some push for more moderate candidates to win if they are the ones winning the primaries.

 

[Xulld]

Get rid of run-off voting: get rid of the two parties that created this mess.

 

[AlBell]

...

If it comes down to a choice of-
1. Selecting a candidate with the correct ideology who may not be able to win in November, or
2. Selecting a more moderate candidate, with broader appeal, who might be able to win in November-

Dole, McCain, Romney were all Establishment choices who failed to gain 1. voters, so no they don't "select No. 1 every time".
The times #1 made it to a ballot, only in State elections, Teaparty candidates seem to have done just fine.

It's an argument in favor of going back to when the Bosses ran the political parties.

Eastern Establishment republican leadership share all the same goals as democrats, just argue about who's buddies reap the spoils.

 

[Mister Earl]

Yet again I feel necessary to apologize to all and sundry. As a Pennsylvanian, I can't help but feel responsible for this man somehow.

 

[newyorkguy]

Dole, McCain, Romney were all Establishment choices who failed to gain 1. voters, so no they don't "select No. 1 every time".
The times #1 made it to a ballot, only in State elections, Teaparty candidates seem to have done just fine.

....

By "they" I meant the right-wing of the party chose the ideologically 'pure' candidates in the primaries, not the party itself. My point was, in order to win in the primaries, moderate Republican candidates have to become more conservative.

I think you can make a very strong case that the right-wing of the GOP pushed both McCain and Romney into changing positions they'd held for many years -- on things like immigration, health care and reproductive rights -- and it hurt them not helped them in the Presidential election.

That's a good point, that the more conservative positions work well in local elections. That is another source of pressure on national candidates to modify their positions. Reportedly the GOP RNC told McCain he had to change his position on immigration during the 2008 campaign. That if he didn't it would make it tougher for Republican candidates at the local level. That the party had to speak with one voice. they threatened to cut off some of his funding.