Of Course Taxing Millionaires is Class Warfare, Stupid

COMMENTARY | The Tea Party Express' chairman, Amy Kremer, blasted President Barack Obama Friday over his American Jobs Act, stating that he was "playing class warfare" by attempting to tax the nation's millionaires. Senate Democrats, according to CNN , proposed a measure where the Act would be paid for via a surtax on those whose income exceeded a million dollars a year. President Obama endorsed the measure on Thursday. Kremer said that it was just another stimulus plan set to fail and a "blame Republicans" ploy by Democrats.

Kremer isn't breaking new ground with her accusation. She's simply parroting the conservative mantra that added taxes -- or reapplied taxes that were suspended by the Bush tax breaks -- are an unfair application against the nation's more successful and wealthiest segment. In short, it is class warfare.

And she is absolutely correct. It is class warfare. It is just as much class warfare for President Obama and the Democrats to target the nation's wealthiest in an attempt to sponsor a plan designed to hopefully create jobs for those who ostensibly have far less money as it was for Republicans to target the unemployed back in December 2010 and characterize them as nothing more than listless free-loaders happy to ride the public dole in order to deny them extended unemployment benefits during an economic downturn primarily caused by some of the wealthiest corporations in the world (remember: according to Citizens United v. FEC Commission granted corporations individual rights).

So, yes, it is class warfare, stupid. It is us against them, rich against poor, haves against have-nots -- dependent only on which side one takes in the argument and considers "us" as opposed to "them."

Kremer is also correct in that it is a "blame Republicans" maneuver. As Republicans continue to defend the wealthy and their wealth against the a nation where the middle class has all but ceased to exist and more and more of its citizens appear to be sinking below the poverty level, it is an argument that the Democrats will continue to use.

And in the interest of honesty, when matters such as taxation, health care, and education arise, isn't it usually a conflict that finds its base in class warfare? The sides generally line up in competing camps whose causes are championed by either the Democrats or the Republicans. Democrats usually push for a populist approach, pushing for universal health care, sponsoring social reforms that benefit the many, and allocating finances and governance in a general welfare and bottom-up style that generally benefits those of lesser means and society as a whole. Republicans generally defend a more elitist and, oddly enough, social Darwinian approach, pushing for individual health care plans, sponsoring reforms that are more socially and economically hands-off, and allocating finances and governance in a free market rule and top-down style that appears to generally benefit the monied and powerful.

Democrats versus Republicans. Poor versus rich. Liberals versus conservatives. Us against them.

Class warfare.

The next time a politician or political operative like the Tea Party Express' Amy Kremer decides to call out the opposition and attempts to color the conversation with accusations of class warfare as if the side they represent is innocent of such an agenda, it should be remembered that the United States was formed as a classless political construct with the intent of allowing for equal representation of those being governed. Several changes over the years have altered the one man-one vote rule, however. Socio-economic differences and inequality were then and continue to be the basis of class conflict, but political representation has become anything but equal. The rise of corporate and monied influences, lobbyists and special interest groups, and the campaign system currently employed point toward the promotion and perpetuation of power and wealth being concentrated among the few.

But the political system should work toward erasing the conflicts where they exist, not exacerbating them. Just as imposing a greater tax burden on millionaires is, from a fairness standpoint, an abrogation of the social equality principle, so, too, is the denial of equal social and economic opportunities to those of meager means. If one position is defended at the expense of the other, there is conflict due to the inequality.

But stating the conflict as though only the other side is engaged in class warfare is disingenuous and hypocritical. Of course it's class warfare, stupid, and both political parties are equally engaged. It is the politics of power, of using one as leverage against the other, a tactic as old as the ideas of social inequality and the desire to maintain the status quo.