Party, power, and privilege: Democrats v. Republicans
By
Max J. Castro Read Spanish Version
What
difference does the party in power make?
Ask
Libby Ledbetter, who has been victimized by Republicans representing
two branches of government.
Before
being harmed by Republicans in the judicial and legislative branches,
Liddy Ledbetter was hurt by the GOP’s best friend, big business. In
an April 27 column, Clarence Page, editorial writer for the Chicago
Tribune,
summarizes Ledbetter’s story:
“Lilly
Ledbetter worked in a Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co.
plant in Gadsden, Ala., for 19 years before she received a valuable
tip from an anonymous source: She was making $6,500 less than the
lowest-paid guy who had her job.
”She did what anybody might
do. She sued.”
You
would think that being cheated out of lots of money for almost two
decades because of gender discrimination would qualify Ledbetter to a
big win in court and entitle her to a lot of money from the company.
And that is how a jury of her peers and the appeals court saw it.
But
the Supreme Court, loaded with ferociously pro-business justices
appointed by a succession of Republican presidents, had another view.
In a 5-4 ruling, the high court ruled against Ledbetter because she
failed to file suit within 180 days of the onset of discrimination.
Never
mind that Ledbetter, like most employees in the private sector, had
no way of knowing how much her male colleagues were making for doing
the same work. Forget the fact that most employers systemically
withhold that kind of information and that many businesses consider
disclosing one’s salary a firing offense. The majority of the Court
was more concerned about the potential harm to a business if it were
to be held accountable for conduct initiated more than six months
previously than in the long running injustice perpetrated by Goodyear
against Ledbetter.
This
spring Congress tried and failed to pass a law that would have undone
the harm perpetrated by Goodyear and the Supreme Court decision on
the Ledbetter case. The law also would ensure that such outrages do
not occur in the future.
The
House, solidly under Democratic control, passed the legislation. A
clear majority of the members of the Senate (56 out of 100) voted for
the bill. But a minority of Senators, a group comprised solely of
Republicans, refused to go along. Thus the legislation could not
obtain the 60 votes required to force a vote. The reason was the
opposition of the overwhelming majority of Republicans. While the
Democrats were unanimous in support of the proposed law, only six
Republican Senators voted for the legislation, which would have
restored the rights of women and minorities taken away by a Supreme
Court stacked with right-wing jurists who almost always find in favor
of corporate interests.
To
reinforce the point of just where Republicans stand in regard to
fairness to women and minorities who have suffered employment
discrimination, Senator John McCain indicated he would have voted
against the legislation while President Bush had threatened a veto.
Thus,
while the Democrats are a flawed lot when it comes to defending the
interests of the American public against corporate interests, the
Republicans approach perfection in their support for the corporate
agenda. There are limits to the Democrats’ collusion with Big
Business. Not so with the Republicans, as the Ledbetter case
illustrates. For, as on so many instances, from occupational health
and safety to tax fairness, on the issue of ensuring elemental
fairness for people who have suffered brazen employment
discrimination versus safeguarding the profits and prerogatives of
corporations, it is crystal clear where the Republicans stand. They
stand for the interests of the corporate elite.
What
difference does the party in power make? Ask Larry M. Bartells,
professor of politics at Princeton, who has analyzed Census Bureau
data over the last 60 years and found that what party controls the
White House makes a profound economic difference for the middle class
and the working poor.
Over
the last six decades, according to an article written by Bartels in
the New
York Times Sunday Magazine
(“Inequalities,” April 27, 2008), median middle class family
income has increased twice as much under Democratic presidents as
under Republican chief executives. It is a huge difference but
nothing compared with the difference that the party in power makes
for the poorest 20 percent of families. Their incomes rose six times
as fast under Democratic administrations as compared to GOP
administrations.
One
might suppose that bigger rises in income for the poor and the middle
class during Democratic presidents would mean smaller income
increases for the rich. Were that the case, it would not present a
moral dilemma; increasing the income of the rich is less desirable
than increasing the income of the middle class and, especially, the
poor. An extra $10,000, for instance, means a much larger increase in
the welfare of a family with a $20,000 income or a $50,000 income
than one with a $500,000 income. But, in fact, the income of the
better-off sectors of the population did not suffer under the
Democrats. Instead, the income of the rich increased about as much
under Democratic administrations as under Republican presidents.
It
would seem, then, that a Democrat in the White House is a win for all
concerned, even the rich. A Republican in the White House is a loss
for everyone except the rich. How come then that Republicans have
held the White House for 28 of the last 40 years?
That
is the subject of an upcoming column. For now, these examples suggest
how much of a difference it makes whether the Republicans or the
Democrats control the White House and other centers of power.
