10/27/11

To have or to have not, that is the question.

Lately the term class warfare has  surfaced in political discussions. Republicans especially get up on their hind legs and spout out a negative spin on the term. They would have us believe that class warfare is like the plague and should be avoided at all costs. They angrily proclaim that class warfare is a tool of the liberals.  The solution according to the righteous right  is the capitulation of the middle class. The chosen few they say, will trickle down enough favors to insure the survival of some semblance of a  middle class. The middle class they say should work their butts off to insure that the chosen few have the resources  to part with those favors.

I submit that the class warfare that we witness in a democracy is nothing more than classes being at odds with each other. It has been thus for ages. For one class to quietly submit to the wishes of another is not called for in our society. For one class to call for a redress of their grievances is a right granted by the founders of our Republic. Class warfare is only to be feared when one class uses any overwhelming power that it has gathered , to beat another class into submission.

I further submit that we will always have classes. We will unfortunately always have the "haves" and the "have nots". It is the responsibility of government to attempt to blur the lines between classes. It is the responsibility of government to give the "have nots" a realistic chance of becoming "haves". Failing to do so, only gives root to violence.

Let us have our class warfare until injustices are eliminated. Let us have our "Occupy Wall Street", "Occupy Cleveland" until government responds to the needs of society. To do less would only give credence to what some believe - only the chosen few are fit to govern.  The middle class has a right to be heard even at the risk of their actions being labeled as class warfare.

No comments: