Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage on
 

Obama should ignore 'class warfare' gibes

By Julian Zelizer, CNN Contributor
July 9, 2012 -- Updated 1411 GMT (2211 HKT)
President Barack Obama arrives at a campaign event at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh on July 5.
President Barack Obama arrives at a campaign event at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh on July 5.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • President Obama reportedly asked historians for defense vs. 'class warfare' attacks
  • Zelizer: There's no way for president to avoid conflict over the issue of inequality
  • Two Democratic presidents -- FDR and LBJ -- found different ways to raise the issue, he says
  • Zelizer: Today's economic stagnation increases the difficulty of addressing inequality

Editor's note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" and of the new book "Governing America."

Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- During a meeting with historians in 2011, Politico reported, President Obama said: "What you could do for me is to help me find a way to discuss the issue of inequality in our society without being accused of class warfare." For Obama, this is not an esoteric question. Rather, this is a challenge that will be integral to his campaign and, if he is re-elected, to his second term as president.

Many Democrats have argued that Obama should have tackled this issue from his first day in the White House. But this is an issue the president didn't think he had the political capital to address. He has also continually feared that touching on inequality would open him up to Republican attacks of being left of center.

Obama's question to the historians has no easy answer. When Democratic presidents have tackled issues of inequality, they have usually come under intense attack. That is the cost of trying to address this problem through government. (Republicans argue this is best left to the marketplace.) The key to success has been how strong the Democrats' responses to the critics have been.

Julian Zelizer
Julian Zelizer

Two Democratic presidents who tackled the problem of inequality in the 20th century in very different times were Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.

In 1932, FDR took office at the height of the Great Depression, with 25% of the workforce unemployed. He argued that the federal government would have to help take care of those who were suffering.

Obama: Extend Bush-era tax cuts
Romney: Jobs report a 'kick in the gut'
Israel: Law a victory for middle class

FDR promoted policies that aimed to provide greater economic security to working and middle-class Americans. Many of his key policies -- such as public works, Social Security, and the right to join a union -- aimed to make certain that the bottom did not fall out for those who were not rich and that average Americans had a strong foundation to climb up the income ladder once the Depression ended.

The business community responded predictably. While some leaders in the corporate world accepted the need for a New Deal, many others did not. The American Liberty League, an organization founded by business leaders in 1934, attacked FDR for trying to stoke class conflict and dividing Americans for his own political objectives. Following his combative State of the Union message in January 1936, when Roosevelt declared that his administration had "earned the hatred of entrenched greed," the American Liberty League denounced his effort to pit "class against class."

Roosevelt didn't run away. He insisted that the government had a duty to strengthen those who were disadvantaged. He also embraced the argument that if middle-class Americans prospered, they would spend money in consumer markets, which would in turn help the whole economy.

Finally, at some moments he argued that the nation suffered when the wealthy accumulated excessive economic and political power. In a 1936 campaign speech, FDR said: "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace -- business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. ... Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."

Lyndon Johnson was more timid in certain respects. Johnson rarely spoke about the obligations of the rich, nor did he push for any kinds of tax increases until later in his presidency.

But he was willing to deal with the suffering of those who were not sharing in the prosperity of the era. He argued that a nation as great as the United States could not simply let inequality persist.

The centerpiece of his earlier years was the War on Poverty. In his State of the Union address in January 1964, Johnson said: "Unfortunately, many Americans live on the outskirts of hope -- some because of their poverty, and some because of their color, and all too many because of both. Our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity. This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America. ... The richest nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it."

Republicans did not sit by quietly. They attacked him for distributing funds to groups they called radical organizations and spending government money on urban populations. In 1964, Republican candidate Barry Goldwater said the War on Poverty was an attempt to "divide Americans." Johnson responded that his anti-poverty programs would in fact help the poor become self-sufficient and give them the tools to be good citizens.

It has become more difficult for Democratic presidents to discuss inequality for three reasons.

The first is the rise of the conservative movement, the mobilization of right-wing politicians, activists, and organizations who shifted political debate to the right. Certain questions, such as the role of government in diminishing inequality, became politically explosive.

The second reason is the particular state of the economy. During the 1930s, the state of the economic downturn was so severe that business and the wealthy had their backs to the wall, and progressive discussions about inequality received greater support. During the 1960s, the era of economic growth created the impression that the economic pie could continue to expand so that everyone could enjoy the rewards of the expanding GNP.

Currently, the economy is stagnant, yet conditions are not as severe as in the 1930s. As a result, discussions of inequality are still politically risky at the same time that they appear to require a zero-sum game where, to ease inequality, one side would have to lose in order for the other to gain.

Finally, the campaign system is flooded with private money, with both presidential candidates taking enormous contributions from wealthy interests who have little appetite for policies that would seriously diminish economic inequality, such as strengthening the progressive tax system. As a result, there is strong counter-pressure against any politician, Democrat or Republican, who is thinking of taking this step.

Regardless of these changes, a vibrant national discussion about inequality, with the president taking the lead, is essential. The 2012 campaign offers Obama an opportunity to put this problem on the national agenda.

The challenge for Obama is that there really is no way around the inevitable attacks, and there is no way to talk about economic inequality other than talking about it. Rather than looking for rhetorical tricks, Obama should instead focus on having the best arguments in response to the conservative attacks. This will require borrowing from Roosevelt a defense of how a vibrant middle class will be crucial to revitalizing America's economic position in the world, and from Johnson an argument that the ethical obligation to help the poorest is incumbent on our democracy.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian Zelizer.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
April 23, 2014 -- Updated 1641 GMT (0041 HKT)
Robert Hickey says most new housing development is high-end, catering to high-earners.
April 23, 2014 -- Updated 1317 GMT (2117 HKT)
Alexander Motyl says as Russian President Putin snarled at Ukraine, his foreign minister was signing a conciliatory accord with the West. Whatever the game, the accord is a major stand down by Russia
April 23, 2014 -- Updated 1229 GMT (2029 HKT)
Les Abend says at every turn, the stowaway teen defied the odds of discovery and survival. What pilot would have thought to look for a person in the wheel well?
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 2247 GMT (0647 HKT)
Q & A with artist Rachel Sussman on her new book of photographs, "The Oldest Living Things in the World."
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 1958 GMT (0358 HKT)
Martin Blaser says the overuse of antibiotics threatens to deplete our bodies of "good" microbes, leaving us vulnerable to an unstoppable plague--an "antibiotic winter"
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 1737 GMT (0137 HKT)
John Sutter asks: Is it possible to eat meat in modern-day America and consider yourself an environmentalist without being a hypocrite?
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 1538 GMT (2338 HKT)
Sally Kohn notes that Meb Keflezighi rightly was called an American after he won the Boston Marathon, but his status in the U.S. once was questioned
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 1256 GMT (2056 HKT)
Denis Hayes and Scott Denman say on this Earth Day, the dawn of the Solar Age is already upon us and the Atomic Age of nuclear power is in decline
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 2036 GMT (0436 HKT)
Retired Coast Guard officer James Loy says a ship captain bears huge responsibility.
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 1708 GMT (0108 HKT)
Peter Bergen says the latest strikes are part of an aggressive U.S. effort to target militants, including a bomb maker
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 1345 GMT (2145 HKT)
Cynthia Lummis and Peter Welch say 16 agencies carry out national intelligence, and their budgets are top secret. We need to know how they are spending our money.
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 1235 GMT (2035 HKT)
Julian Zelizer says President Obama knows more than anyone that he has much at stake in the midterm elections.
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 1255 GMT (2055 HKT)
Eric Sanderson says if you really want to strike a blow for the environment--and your health--this Earth Day, work to get cars out of cities and create transportation alternatives
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 1408 GMT (2208 HKT)
Bruce Barcott looks at the dramatic differences in marijuana laws in Colorado and Louisiana
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 2047 GMT (0447 HKT)
Jim Bell says NASA's latest discovery supports the notion that habitable worlds are probably common in the galaxy.
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 1817 GMT (0217 HKT)
Jay Parini says even the Gospels skip the actual Resurrection and are sketchy on the appearances that followed.
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 1752 GMT (0152 HKT)
Graham Allison says if an unchecked and emboldened Russia foments conflict in a nation like Latvia, a NATO member, the West would have to defend it.
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 1311 GMT (2111 HKT)
John Sutter: Bad news, guys -- the pangolin we adopted is missing.
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 1825 GMT (0225 HKT)
Ben Wildavsky says we need a better way to determine whether colleges are turning out graduates with superior education and abilities.
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 1026 GMT (1826 HKT)
Charles Maclin, program manager working on the search and recovery of Malaysia Flight 370, explains how it works.
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 1250 GMT (2050 HKT)
Jill Koyama says Michael Bloomberg is right to tackle gun violence, but we need to go beyond piecemeal state legislation.
April 17, 2014 -- Updated 1845 GMT (0245 HKT)
Michael Bloomberg and Shannon Watts say Americans are ready for sensible gun laws, but politicians are cowed by the NRA. Everytown for Gun Safety will prove the NRA is not that powerful.
ADVERTISEMENT