David Rothman over at TeleRead.org has an interesting post elaborating on his comment on the John Edwards post. David sees some hypocrisy going on with Prof. Edwards stance on Poverty. Surprised? But isn’t that the very nature of compromise and politicians? By compromising for one issue your not supporting another.
While I’ve been sick I’ve been reading a lot. The flu has stopped me from podcasting for a bit but not from typing 🙂 One book I love reading often is The People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn. In Chapter 13: The Socialist Challenge there is discussion of how ‘Progressives’ like President Roosevelt (they were called Progressive in comparison to the Corporate Barons who sought NO compromise with anyone) brought about regulation of corporations to calm down the violent revolt and strikes made inevitable by dangerous and inhuman working conditions of early 20th century corporations. This moderate approach is a type of compromise that’s real goal, as stated by Zinn, was to head off the growth of American Socialism. A group who’s real interest was in the people and ending their poverty. All of this lip service being paid to the important issues of poverty are useless when it’s purpose is to build up the consumer middle class so big corporations can stay happy and fat. This issue is at the very CORE of the “American Dream”. Yeah we all want to live the good life, but at what cost? There is a finite amount of money in the world. Whether or not it’s based on a gold standard or not. For there to be a big middle class we have to have fewer super rich or more poor. The middle class was created to “Consume products and shit money”[paraphrase]. Read THE PEOPLES HISTORY OF THE US. Very important counter weight, hell total revision, of everything you think you know about political history in the US.