One of the interesting things about Edwards is that during his bid for the Democratic Party nomination he spoke of “Two Americas” — one for the haves and and one for the have nots.

OK, so I went out on a limb and fell.   John Kerry did not pick Jim Clyburn to be his running mate.  I guess I just had to be different didn’t I?

So that leaves us with a Kerry-Edwards ticket.  One of the interesting things about Edwards is that during his bid for the Democratic Party nomination he spoke of “Two Americas” — one for the haves and and one for the have nots.  

I could not help but grin.  This is not the first time I have heard a politician speak of the haves and have nots.   

As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, during my days in Canada I was a card carrying member of the socialist New Democratic Party (NDP).  I was active with the party on both the federal and provincial level in Ontario.  The leader of the Ontario NDP was (and continues to be) Howard Hampton.  Between 1996 and 1999, I heard Hampton draw attention to the haves and have nots in the numerous speeches I witnessed.  I also heard him speak about the economy working for people as opposed to people working for the economy.

In those days I was stirred by those words and thought the whole province would be similarly stirred.  That is until the provincial election of 1999.  Every day after work I would head to downtown Ottawa and canvass for the NDP candidate for several hours and did much the same on the weekends.   

I knocked on hundreds, possibly even over a thousand, doors during that campaign.  Although our candidate was reasonably liked and Hampton was respected I found many people turned off by our message.   

Simply put — who decides who is a have and who is a have not?     
During the first term of Mike Harris’ Progressive Conservative government, provincial income taxes had been reduced across the board by 30%.  Hampton had pledged to reverse the tax cut on the wealthiest 6% of Ontarians to invest in health care and education.   Hampton had decided that anyone earning over $80,000 per annum (about $55,000 per annum in U.S. dollars) was in fact “a have.”

Needless to say, this did not go over well with the Ontario electorate.  The NDP went from 17 to 9 seats in that election.

You would think somebody might have learned something from that sort of repudiation.  Instead, the NDP embarked on a process to reconnect with the electorate called “The Way Ahead.”    It used as its central theme, the Growing Gap.  Now one might think of a thriving retail clothing store with such a calling card.  But again, the NDP was talking about the growing gap between the rich and poor.

In the most recent provincial election in 2003, the NDP went from 9 to 7 seats.   

Some people never learn.

So why are the terms “have” and “have not” unappealing to people?

First of all, people who have modest incomes don’t like being reminded that they are poor.
   
Second, people who are considered “have nots” would like to become “haves,” and don’t want to be punished for trying to get ahead in life.

Third, going beyond the material realm, there are people who may possess little in the way of monetary wealth but may be rich in terms of kindness and generosity, and pass on these riches to their children and to those around them. To have one’s life worth reduced to a dollar sign by someone seeking elected office diminishes the messenger.

Fourth, those who speak about the “haves” and “have nots” are only telling the world about a problem, not what they intend to do about it.   Or at the very least the solutions proposed are vague and far from viable.   

The closest anyone on the Left spoke about class without being condescending about it was Britain’s Tony Blair.  One of the key slogans of New Labour was “wealth for the many, not just the few.”  Nice.  Catchy.  Downright positive. But this has not come about in Britain.

Getting back to Kerry-Edwards, here is what they intend to do with regard to the economy and jobs:

The first thing John Kerry will do is fight his heart out to bring back the three million jobs that have been lost under George W. Bush.  He will fight to restore the jobs lost under Bush in the first 500 days of his administration.  Kerry has proposed creating jobs through a new manufacturing jobs credit, by investing in new energy industries, restoring technology, and stopping layoffs in education.

Fight his heart out?  Well, that’s very nice.  But George W. Bush didn’t lose 3 million jobs and John Kerry can’t bring them back.   Governments do not create jobs.  Sure, governments can create the conditions where job growth can exist, but to suggest such a thing can be done by a single signature is just plain dishonest.

Kerry proposes a new manufacturing job credit.  He means to say tax credit but no matter.  So what is wrong with the existing one and why would a new one create more jobs?  Kerry decries “tax cuts for the wealthy,”  but wouldn’t such a credit benefit the very wealthy people he claims to decry?    

Investing in new energy industries is interesting, but the Bush Administration is also investing in new energy industries, especially fuel cell technology that may lead to the proliferation of electric powered automobiles.  So nothing new there for Kerry.

How exactly does Kerry plan to “restore technology?”  There have been incredible innovations in the Internet, satellite radio, broadband cable and other wireless technologies in the past four years.  What is it exactly that leads Kerry to believe there is a dearth of technological innovation?

I’m also not sure how Kerry can stop layoffs in education.    Presumably he is speaking about teachers.  But these are decisions that are made at the state, county and local levels of government.    I don’t see how Kerry can prevent layoffs in education, be it in Saugus, Massachusetts or Sagamore, Michigan.  This is most likely a nod to the National Education Association and other teacher unions, a key Democratic Party constituency.

At the end of the day I think about my maternal grandfather.  He went to work in a coal mine at the age of fifteen.  He had an elementary school education.  Forty three years later he retired.    By no means was he a rich man but he raised two children, was beloved by eight grandchildren, several great grandchildren and the community he lived in most of his life.  Generous to all, he was richer than a thousand Donald Trumps.

He used to tell my siblings and I “that the world don’t owe you a living.  You have to make your own way in this world.”

Americans don’t need John Kerry or John Edwards to tell them they are a have or a have not.  They can promise the moon but deliver only its dust.  For better or worse, Americans need to create the own path to their land of promise.  The best thing that Kerry and Edwards can do is stay out of our way.