Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Son of a Millworker
Senator Edwards is the son of a millworker. I know this because every time he gives a speech, he mentions that he was the son of a millworker. Every time anyone else gives a speech about him, it's highlighted that he was the son of a millworker. Every time an article is written about him, it's underscored that he was the son of a millworker. Well, that's not entirely fair. Sometimes they shake things up and say "mill worker".
Of course, it's a touch more accurate to say he was the son of a "mill production manager", and the little shack they show in the commercials isn't really where he was raised, but perhaps that's just nitpicking. I suppose if I felt my "humble origins" would help me win public office, I could show a picture of my parents' old trailer, even though I only lived there until I was three.
The whole point is kinda moot, since before any of us knew his name, Edwards became a multi-gazillionaire. To hear him talk, you'd think he was still living in that small house in Seneca, and not the 4-million dollar mansion in which he presently resides. (Then again, to hear Kerry talk you'd think he just got through with his last Vietnam assignment a few months ago, but that's for a different article.)
In a way, Edwards' insistence that it's amazing a "son of a millworker" can compete for higher office is a bit, well, duh. Many of our greatest presidents, from Jackson to Lincoln to Eisenhower to Reagan, grew up not only poor, but in poverty. The point behind what Edwards really means is a valid one: in America, we don't have a caste system. Some of our richest and most powerful people, in politics, entertainment, and business, came from extremely humble origins. Unlike, say, Great Britain, in which every article ever written about J. K. Rowling can't resist references to her "public assistance" days since it's such a unfathomable rarity, most of our millionaires were self-made -- especially in the entertainment and technology arenas. In speeches, Edwards uses the millworker example as a way of underscoring why this country is such a neato place (though he seems to forget he's not the first one to notice that.)
Ironic, then, that the other thing Edwards can't make a speech without mentioning is his theory of the "two Americas." It's generally worded like this: "In this country there are two Americas: one for the privileged who get everything they want, and one for everyone else who struggle for the things they need." Sounds reasonable, but wasn't his whole point about America being great because the "son of a millworker" could run for President completely contradictory to the "two Americas" philosophy? It seems a little silly to simultaneously decry a division between rich and poor while bragging that part of our greatness is that no such line exists. (It'd be like making your fortune from suing doctors and hospitals and health care providers for hundreds of millions of dollars, and then giving speeches all over the country about the need for lower health care costs. Oh, wait.)
Yes, the media and entertainment industry and politicians all love oversimplifying our nation into two huge groups of individuals, "the rich" and "the poor", with a great chasm between them that only the exceptional (like Edwards) can cross. But in actuality, the range of incomes in the U.S. is a pretty smooth curve. Though we may not have quite the egalitarian distribution of income as certain bank protesters might advocate, and although the upper 1% controls an enormous disproportion of the nation's wealth, the idea that there are "two Americas" ignores the 90% of us on some point on the slope in the middle.
I don't mean to be too hard on Edwards. Unlike most politicians, Edwards' passion for "fighting for the little guy" seems genuine and heartfelt. But the tired, divisive "us vs. them" rhetoric used by so many Democrats seems equally tiring when delivered by someone who's an example to the contrary. Rather than continuing to make the nation's poor feel like it isn't their fault, that their place in life is hopeless unless the Democrats come and save them, that the rich don't deserve their riches and in an equitable world an uneducated single mother would make more than a multi-degreed executive, rather than dividing us into "two Americas", why not use your own life experiences to help defy that myth? Why not spend more time on the fact that you were the first in your family to go to college, that you worked your ass off to pay your way through law school (even though it meant buying Elizabeth an $11 wedding ring,) that you achieved your wealth not out of some unfair, undeserved "luck" but by trying harder than others. Show by example that the American dream is open to anyone and everyone, and that even though success to some may come faster than to others, the Democratic party stands for everyone's chance to try.
After all, I hear you were the son of a millworker.
(also posted on defeatjohnjohn.com)
Senator Edwards is the son of a millworker. I know this because every time he gives a speech, he mentions that he was the son of a millworker. Every time anyone else gives a speech about him, it's highlighted that he was the son of a millworker. Every time an article is written about him, it's underscored that he was the son of a millworker. Well, that's not entirely fair. Sometimes they shake things up and say "mill worker".
Of course, it's a touch more accurate to say he was the son of a "mill production manager", and the little shack they show in the commercials isn't really where he was raised, but perhaps that's just nitpicking. I suppose if I felt my "humble origins" would help me win public office, I could show a picture of my parents' old trailer, even though I only lived there until I was three.
The whole point is kinda moot, since before any of us knew his name, Edwards became a multi-gazillionaire. To hear him talk, you'd think he was still living in that small house in Seneca, and not the 4-million dollar mansion in which he presently resides. (Then again, to hear Kerry talk you'd think he just got through with his last Vietnam assignment a few months ago, but that's for a different article.)
In a way, Edwards' insistence that it's amazing a "son of a millworker" can compete for higher office is a bit, well, duh. Many of our greatest presidents, from Jackson to Lincoln to Eisenhower to Reagan, grew up not only poor, but in poverty. The point behind what Edwards really means is a valid one: in America, we don't have a caste system. Some of our richest and most powerful people, in politics, entertainment, and business, came from extremely humble origins. Unlike, say, Great Britain, in which every article ever written about J. K. Rowling can't resist references to her "public assistance" days since it's such a unfathomable rarity, most of our millionaires were self-made -- especially in the entertainment and technology arenas. In speeches, Edwards uses the millworker example as a way of underscoring why this country is such a neato place (though he seems to forget he's not the first one to notice that.)
Ironic, then, that the other thing Edwards can't make a speech without mentioning is his theory of the "two Americas." It's generally worded like this: "In this country there are two Americas: one for the privileged who get everything they want, and one for everyone else who struggle for the things they need." Sounds reasonable, but wasn't his whole point about America being great because the "son of a millworker" could run for President completely contradictory to the "two Americas" philosophy? It seems a little silly to simultaneously decry a division between rich and poor while bragging that part of our greatness is that no such line exists. (It'd be like making your fortune from suing doctors and hospitals and health care providers for hundreds of millions of dollars, and then giving speeches all over the country about the need for lower health care costs. Oh, wait.)
Yes, the media and entertainment industry and politicians all love oversimplifying our nation into two huge groups of individuals, "the rich" and "the poor", with a great chasm between them that only the exceptional (like Edwards) can cross. But in actuality, the range of incomes in the U.S. is a pretty smooth curve. Though we may not have quite the egalitarian distribution of income as certain bank protesters might advocate, and although the upper 1% controls an enormous disproportion of the nation's wealth, the idea that there are "two Americas" ignores the 90% of us on some point on the slope in the middle.
I don't mean to be too hard on Edwards. Unlike most politicians, Edwards' passion for "fighting for the little guy" seems genuine and heartfelt. But the tired, divisive "us vs. them" rhetoric used by so many Democrats seems equally tiring when delivered by someone who's an example to the contrary. Rather than continuing to make the nation's poor feel like it isn't their fault, that their place in life is hopeless unless the Democrats come and save them, that the rich don't deserve their riches and in an equitable world an uneducated single mother would make more than a multi-degreed executive, rather than dividing us into "two Americas", why not use your own life experiences to help defy that myth? Why not spend more time on the fact that you were the first in your family to go to college, that you worked your ass off to pay your way through law school (even though it meant buying Elizabeth an $11 wedding ring,) that you achieved your wealth not out of some unfair, undeserved "luck" but by trying harder than others. Show by example that the American dream is open to anyone and everyone, and that even though success to some may come faster than to others, the Democratic party stands for everyone's chance to try.
After all, I hear you were the son of a millworker.
(also posted on defeatjohnjohn.com)
