Ah, to be young again, back when I was a fervent True Believer in my Party. I was such a proud Democrat, and a staunch card-carrying member of the ACLU to boot. I have to tell you, I just about cried when Walter Mondale lost to Reagan in 1984, the first year I cast a vote. Ah, to be that young and simple again. I wouldn't do it for a million bucks!
On the other hand, I might do it for eleven million bucks, in which case I would be worth about as much as the average Democratic Senator...
...., although if I were worth only about $3 million I could be an average Republican. All this is according to Roll Call magazine. Democrats have long been a party of wealthy plutocrats, going back to such silver-spooners as Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. But the wealth of the party's most powerful continues to grow, sometimes seemingly in proportion to their rhetoric.
Ironically, the very poorest member of the Senate is Republican Tim Hutchinson, who is considered one of the GOP's most-vulnerable Senators running for re-election this fall. He faces a deep-pocket Democratic opponent who will almost certainly outspend him considerably.
By the way, Roll Call is one of the most respected non-partisan political publications in Washington. It's edited by staunch liberal Democrat Mort Kondracke, and has won acclaim over the years for its fair-minded and non-partisan analysis of the people and issues in Washington. (Yes, even conservatives like it.) Kondracke also writes for Jewish World Review, and can be seen making salient points most nights on my favorite political news show, Special Report with Brit Hume.
Oh my. You voted for MONDALE??
No wonder you call yourself a Republican.
:^)
In 1984 I voted Libertarian because I was so disappointed in the Democrats and their campaign.
Uh, hold on....There's more to the story than what you represent:
"Of the 40 millionaires, 23 are Republicans and 17 are Democrats...
"However, thanks to folks such as Kerry and Kohl, the Democrats have a higher average net worth.
"[That's why] the average net worth of a Senate Republican was about $2.9 million, whereas the average Democrat's net worth was nearly $11 million."
BTW, we'll be seeing more of this as time goes on (rich candidates and incumbents) because of the necessity of relentless fund-raising. The rule will be (and is!): BYOM.
Most of those guys don't spend their own money to get elected.
The real rule seems to be that the fastest way to get rich is to get involved in politics. Bill and Hillary can give you a lesson in that. There's money to be made peddling class warfare, and lots of it. Just talk a good game about how you're going to help "the little guy" while you work on your rolodex and create your network of cronies.
Power corrupts, no matter what your motivations when you start. In fact, if you start out convinced your motives are pure and decent, it's all that easier to seduce yourself into being able to rationalize just about anything. Which is why we need limits to power and greater decentralization of authority.
Oh, by the way, I don't call myself a Republican. I've switched party registrations several times. Today I like the Republicans better because I think the class-warfare and race-baiting rhetoric of Democrats is evil, and they keep lying about taxes. I'm pleased to see that there are at least a few in my old party who recognize this. If the party ever comes to its senses, I may even rejoin it.
But I will not be a member of the party of Clinton, Gephardt, Daschle and Gore.
Mondale? MONDALE!? Sheesh, you voted against Reagan for re-election? Chucklehead.... Heh heh heh.
Full disclosure, If I had been able to vote in '76 (I turned 17 that year) I would probably have voted for Carter. And (being an Ohio boy) I used to vote for John Glenn regularly, but too many stories about corruption were popping up, alas.
And I did vote for Perot in '96... Sorry, but I don't think Dole should have been President just 'cuz he was "next" in the GOP hierarchy.
I suppose I'm a "little l" libertarian, in that I think any government is a utility for things like keeping the streets clean & peaceful, delivering the mail, and keeping the Frogs in France. Or maybe an old-style Federalist: limited specific powers for D.C., with most of the local powers going to the states (Jerry Pournelle is in favor of this).
There were a couple of decent Democrats, tho...
So let's all sit back, and listen to the dulcet tones of that classic Chicago tune "America Needs You, Harry Truman".... ;)
I am a classical liberal and a states-rights Federalist. In fact, the Federalist Society is getting very popular these days espousing those exact views. It only makes sense; the whole idea that a nation this big can be governed by one centralized authority is laughable--and highly illiberal, I'll note.
Predictably, certain people paint them as "far right" "extremist" group cloaking a hidden racist/totalitarian/whatever agenda. Classic smear job stuff. But that just goes back to something I've said many times before:
50 years ago if you wanted to smear someone for having ideas you didn't like, you accused him of being a Communist. Now you call him either a racist or a radical right-winger (preferably both).
"50 years ago if you wanted to smear someone for having ideas you didn't like, you accused him of being a Communist. Now you call him either a racist or a radical right-winger (preferably both)."
...or a liberal. That usually costs the guy the election.
Calling him a racist and a right-wing extremist works better, and as a bonus, you can ruin his reputation as a human being forever.
Dean,
You gave me some really good information about the Senate's wealth and which party has the most of what. But can you provide me with any information about the Congress?
I am specifically interested in the numbers within each party.
If that information is available, I thank you very much in advance.
Dave
Just click on the Roll Call Magazine link at the beginning of the article, Dave. That's all I know.
Tremendously worded, keep up the tremendou work