Who built it? We did! The Democrats rebut the GOP convention

CHARLOTTE, N.C.–For a week, I’ve been waiting to see whether and how the Democrats would answer one of the driving themes of the Republican campaign: “We Built It!” which is the reply to President Barack Obama’s alleged disdain for the achievements of the business owners of America.

Tuesday afternoon, walking down College Street in between the bands of rain, I saw the answer. Volunteers were handing out fans so that delegates could attempt to wave away the heat and humidity. On the fan was this slogan: “We Make It Possible.”

In that simple statement we hear echoes of a class divide between the parties. And however muddled, however overshadowed by issues of race, war and culture, this notion has endured for most of the Democratic Party’s political life, and may yet wield decisive influence on this campaign.

For Republicans, Obama’s jumbled argument that business successes depend on communal efforts–schools, roads and bridges as well as technical and financial assistance–was a godsend. And while the Romney campaign clearly poured fuel on the fire, the anger within the small-business community was not feigned.

A few weeks ago, I interviewed Cheri Hottinger, president of the Newark, Ohio, Chamber of Commerce and treasurer of her family’s electrical contracting business. She’s also a delegate to the GOP convention. Hottinger grew up in a family shattered by her father’s drug addiction and divorce; she’s been working since she was 16. And Obama’s remarks were profoundly offensive to her. Why?

“Because we did build it,” she said. “That’s what our country was founded on. If we don’t have entrepreneurial spirit and if we don't support those types of people, we don’t have a country. And that’s how I feel like. I feel like we are so lucky to be in this country and have the freedoms that we do.  But we’re slowly getting them taken away. And–and that–that really means a great deal to me.”

That’s precisely why “We Built It!” became a major theme of the Tampa convention: It stokes that innovative streak while painting Obama as a liberal who disdains the ethic of success and is determined to burden the achievers with higher taxes and more regulations. And it’s why the Democrats appear to be reaching back into its oldest, most consistent theme: that success is built in good measure on the labor of multitudes.

That idea is at the heart of William Jennings Bryan’s famous “Cross of Gold” speech from 1896. The address was ostensibly about the gold standard, but it defined and still defines the Democrats’ root premise.

“When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests,” Bryan said, “we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer. ... The merchant at the crossroads store is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York. The farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, begins in the spring and toils all summer, and by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of this country creates wealth, is as much a businessman as the man who goes upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain. The miners who go 1,000 feet into the earth or climb 2,000 feet upon the cliffs and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured in the channels of trade are as much businessmen as the few financial magnates who, in a backroom, corner the money of the world.”

In every era since, in one form or another, Democrats have embraced that idea, insisting that federal law should reward the work of those far from the corner office; ensuring labor’s seat at the bargaining table; mandating a minimum wage or maximum hours; using the taxing power to provide for Social Security and health care after a lifetime of work; and writing family leave into federal law.

In fact, much of last night’s convention might have been held under a huge banner that read: “We Make It Possible.” Lilly Ledbetter was there to remind the audience that Obama had signed the equal pay law; more importantly, however, she served to tell the crowd that Mitt Romney embodies the pinched vision of someone insulated from the efforts of those who helped to make him a very wealthy man. “Maybe 23 cents doesn’t sound like a lot to someone with a Swiss bank account and a Cayman Island investment ... and an IRA worth tens of millions of dollars,” she said.

Then San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro drove the point home in his keynote speech, mocking Romney’s suggestion that students looking for college money turn to their parents. “‘Borrow money if you have to from your parents,’ he told them. Gee, why didn’t I think of that?” He added: “I don't think Gov. Romney meant any harm. I think he’s a good guy. He just has no idea how good he’s had it.”

For those on the right side of the political spectrum, this latest retooling of an old Democratic argument will raise the specter of “class warfare” and resentment against the successful. That’s why Michelle Obama, after describing the hardscrabble circumstances of her and her husband’s family, said: “They didn’t begrudge anyone else’s success or care that others had much more than they did … in fact, they admired it. They simply believed in that fundamental American promise that, even if you don’t start out with much, if you work hard and do what you’re supposed to do, then you should be able to build a decent life for yourself and an even better life for your kids and grandkids.”

Does this approach make political sense? Well, the Census Bureau tells us there are nearly 121 million paid employees in the United States, 78 million of whom work for firms that employ a hundred or more workers. These men and women work for someone else. And they may well have a sense that they have had a lot more to do with their boss’s achievements than their boss recognizes–a boss who might well look and talk like the Republican nominee for president.