Haves and Have Nots.

caveat: I wrote this before i read the pirate-bishops response to my politicoblog. i'll respond to his erudite argument next time out.

I don’t believe, as do many of my democratic peers, that one of the primary problems in our country is the widening gap between the haves and the have nots.

At least not as long as the haves and the have nots are measured with income and wealth and possessions and net worth.

I’m trying with all my energy NOT to believe the lie(s) of the advertising-industrial complex that buying things / having things will make me:

More fulfilled.
More happy.
More secure.
More sophisticated.
More hip.
More erudite.
More rebellious.
More normal.
More stable.
More excited.

On the other hand, I do believe that the widening gap between the haves and the have nots is important when it deals with:

Opportunity.

Specifically, the opportunity to find work which reinforces people’s humanity, individuality and belonging.

Specifically, the opportunity to find work which allows people to have and care for children if they so desire.

Specifically, the opportunity to develop your own interests and gift set regardless of the socio-economic strata into which you were born.

How are these opportunities pertinent in this election?

I’ve been convinced that multi-national corporations are one of the most egregious inhibitors of these specific opportunities. They don’t have to be. I think its perfectly plausible that multi-national corporations could provide all of the opportunities I outline above. I just think that in general, they don’t.

Starbucks would be an example of a multi-national corporation that does, more than others, attempt to achieve these ideals. (I know Starbucks has its problems.)

Again, the question, Andrew, how are multinational corporations relevant to the election?

(Unfortunately, we don’t elect CEOs, CFOs or boards…whether we’re stakeholders or not.)

Here’s how: Republicans, in general, believe that the freer a market is, the more wealth (and thus – opportunity) will be created. The opportunities for the have nots emerges from the “compassionate conservativism” – the money from the wealth trickles and/or is donated down to efforts to help the under-privileged.

Democrats (particularly progressive ones – like Clinton, Gore & Kerry) believe that while economic development (capital / wealth creation) is an essential force in nation and world building, the free reign of markets must be held in tension with the rights and needs of workers.

THAT tension gets played out over and over again in many ongoing campaign issues.