From what I gather, and without sounding too conspiratorial, the GOP and Big Business’ reason for breaking up unions seems to be to take away the “voice of the people” by eliminating the middle class. Thus, having the ability to win more elections.
Karl Rove spoke of a one party government back in 2000 and 2004. Ideally for the GOP, having no union means taking the backbone not only of the middle class but also taking the big money that supports Dems and Independents at elections.
I’ll write more on this in a later post.
IN 2008, A LIBERAL Democrat was elected president. Landslide votes gave Democrats huge congressional majorities. Eight years of war and scandal and George W. Bush had stigmatized the Republican Party almost beyond redemption. A global financial crisis had discredited the disciples of free-market fundamentalism, and Americans were ready for serious change.
Or so it seemed. But two years later, Wall Street is back to earning record profits, and conservatives are triumphant. To understand why this happened, it’s not enough to examine polls and tea parties and the makeup of Barack Obama’s economic team. You have to understand how we fell so short, and what we rightfully should have expected from Obama’s election. And you have to understand two crucial things about American politics.
The first is this: Income inequality has grown dramatically since the mid-’70s—far more in the US than in most advanced countries—and the gap is only partly related to college grads outperforming high-school grads. Rather, the bulk of our growing inequality has been a product of skyrocketing incomes among the richest 1 percent and—even more dramatically—among the top 0.1 percent. It has, in other words, been CEOs and Wall Street traders at the very tippy-top who are hoovering up vast sums of money from everyone, even those who by ordinary standards are pretty well off.
Second, American politicians don’t care much about voters with moderate incomes. Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels studied the voting behavior of US senators in the early ’90s and discovered that they respond far more to the desires of high-income groups than to anyone else. By itself, that’s not a surprise. He also found that Republicans don’t respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that’s not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don’t respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.
- How America Is Worse Than Egypt (fool.com)
- American Exceptionalism: GOP Playing Patriot While Screwing America (middle-class-populist.com)
- 4 reviews of Scott Walker (R-Wisconsin) (2011-) (rateitall.com)