There are several problems with Nigel Stark's argument that Forbes' historical report on the richest presidents shows the Democrats as being the party of the rich.
First, we have to remember that the two parties did an almost complete role reversal during the 60's. As I stated in an earlier editorial, Democrats did use to be the party of railroad barons and millionaires as well as of the pro-segregation South. Even as they became liberal in their taxing and spending under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, they remained largely conservative in their social agenda.
Then progressives in the Democratic Party increasingly supported ending racial segregation, validating women’s equality and protecting civil rights, all of which threatened conservative Southern Democrats. Many of these “dixiecrats” like Strom Thurmond moved over to the increasingly conservative Republican Party, and their agenda is now carried on there.
Simultaneously, Republicans increasingly became the party of the rich based on their tendency to give tax breaks and special considerations to the wealthy and corporations. It is this that makes them the party of the rich -- what they do with our money and who their policies favor, not how much they or their president has in the bank.
Most politicians tend to be wealthy, regardless of party. And yes, Kerry has plenty of money, much of it through his wife. But overall the sources of Kerry's campaign funds, and more importantly the ways he would use our wealth, are in my view far superior to Bush's.
Republicans are the party of the rich, in the sense that their economic policies, tax breaks, corporate welfare and environmental agendas more often and to a larger degree favor the wealthy and corporations who fund them--or are them--than do the actions and policies of Democrats.
Respond to this posting
Written by Randy Henderson, a regular contributor to NEXT
Back to top