[Peace-discuss] Why It's Time to Bannish "Average Joeism"

[John W.]

Interesting and not-inaccurate perspective...as long as you don't include
those of us - or at least most of us - who comprise the alternative,
independent media.

John Wason


On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:33 AM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Neither campaign advisors nor the media who take their cues consider
> themselves to be either middle class or working class. They are in service
> of the owner class. Their job is to stereotype, manipulate, and condescend
> to folks who are not in a position to set the terms of discussion. It should
> be clear by now that the middle class *is* the working class--that is,
> wage laborers in the service of the owner class. Trivial distinctions
> between mental and physical labor (as if anyone doesn't have to think), or
> pay grades (or even nominal ownership), are irrelevant, and are meant to
> distract by replacing economic categories with cultural categories. So Joe
> the plumber is cast as a hardworking working class dude who wants to own his
> business (that is, become more like the class of people who are defining
> him)--but it turns out he's not who he claims to be (assuming the media gets
> to define who he claims to be)--he doesn't have a license, and owes
> taxes--if only he had turned out to be a deadbeat dad, the stereotype would
> be complete. He wants to be respectable (do paperwork), but doesn't deserve
> it. So let's end this brief campaign/media generated foray into the world of
> "economic issues" and social class, and get back to the "Palin dudes" (see
> today's NYT)--oops, another working class stereotype--hormonally-driven and
> ignorant working class men. As Edward Said famously pleaded on behalf of the
> Palestinians: "May I have permission to narrate?" Could it be more clear?
> The media despise the people. Their position is predicated on their ambition
> not to be one of them.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; David Green <
> davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2008 5:32:08 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Why It's Time to Bannish "Average Joeism"
>
>   This part of Steve Early's piece was particularly annoying to me:
>
> "But there's still a glaring double-standard at work here. It says a lot
> about HOW WORKING CLASS PEOPLE GET TALKED ABOUT by politicians of both major
> parties WHEN THEY'RE NOT BEING MADE TO DISAPPEAR ENTIRELY INTO OUR VAST
> "MIDDLE CLASS" (which, at times, seems to include 95 per cent of the
> population)."
>
> "MADE TO DISAPPEAR entirely into our vast "middle class"????? The middle
> class is made up of BOTH white AND blue collar workers who are middle income
> -- I'm guessing 95% of the electorate (with, btw, good manufacturing
> jobs paying better than some non-factory jobs, at least once upon a
> time). The biggest snobs seem to be among white collar workers claiming to
> speaking up for and on behalf of blue collar workers, or so they suppose
> -- Steve Early being a prime example -- who insist on differentiating
> between the professional/business, and working classes! It annoys me plenty
> when these guys do this, but it annoys me even more when they accuse
> politicians who do NOT make these distinctions (but instead consider the
> middle class to be made up of blue AND white collar workers) of using
> "the working classes" for political gain. Grrrrrrr.
>  --Jenifer
>
>
> --- On *Sat, 10/18/08, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>* wrote:
>
> From: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why It's Time to Bannish "Average Joeism"
> To: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> Date: Saturday, October 18, 2008, 4:42 PM
>
>   This gets at the elitism of both parties and the media, and the
> inevitable use and abuse of the white working class for the elite's
> purposes. It's not by accident that "Joe Sixpack" is so quickly turned upon.
> He's merely a moment of amusement. Ultimately, his plight and his element
> are not to be taken seriously. _____________________
> Why It's Time to Bannish "Average Joeism" Stop, in the Name of Joe!
>
> October, 18 2008
>
> By *Steve Early*
> Source: CounterPunch
>
> Steve Early's ZSpace Page<http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/steveearly>
>
> Am I the only American voter who's getting annoyed by all the faux-populist
> obeisance and condescending lip-service that's being paid to "average Joes"
> this Fall?
>
>
>
> First there was "Joe Six-Pack," the frequently invoked working-class
> soulmate of Alaskan "Hockey Mom" Sarah Palin. Then, there was "Joe from
> Scranton ," Senator Joseph Biden's strained reinvention of himself as a
> regular blue-collar guy from Pennsylvania 's anthracite region. And now we
> have "Joe the Plumber," the Ohio handy man directly addressed by both John
> McCain and Barack Obama in their final TV debate on Oct. 15.
>
>
>
> What's bothering me, first of all, is the form of address itself. Unlike
> Palin's beer-loving archetype, "Joe the Plumber" is an actual person, with a
> real last name (It's Wurzelbacher and, yes, that might be hard to pronounce
> correctly on national TV.) Yet when someone like Joe Wurzelbacher briefly
> commands center stage—as a random stand-in for all workers (or, more
> accurately, would-be small business owners)—he is immediately shorn of his
> full identity and referred to by his trade instead.
>
> To the extent that Wurzelbacher is now getting full name treatment in
> post-debate media coverage, he may soon regret it. Already, it's been
> reported that he's non-union, un-licensed, never completed his
> apprenticeship as a plumber, and has an unpaid state income tax bill of
> $1,200. In 2006, he was earning just $40,000 when he got divorced. The
> two-man plumbing firm that employs him operates out of the owner's home and
> doesn't generate enough income for its taxes to be raised under Obama's
> plan. It would appear, therefore, that Wurzelbacher has bigger, short-term
> problems than buying out the owner for $250,000, far more than the business
> is worth, and then, if he ever earns more than that in a single year in this
> economy, getting a slightly larger tax bill from Obama!
>
>
>
> Now if McCain and Obama were talking about a better-credentialed building
> trades guy who only goes by one name—like "Jesus the Carpenter"--surname
> dropping wouldn't seem so patronizing. (The Democrats, at least, seem to be
> invoking His name somewhat less than they did earlier in the campaign.) But
> there's still a glaring double-standard at work here. It says a lot about
> how working class people get talked about by politicians of both major
> parties when they're not being made to disappear entirely into our vast
> "middle class" (which, at times, seems to include 95 per cent of the
> population).
>
>
>
> When the names of the high and mighty in America—bankers, big businessmen,
> professors, or generals--come up in prime time debates or on the campaign
> trail, they never warrant the same disrespectfully informal and/or
> stereotypical treatment. For example, when Obama discusses the impact of his
> tax proposals on a well-heeled Omaha investor (who's also his economic
> advisor) and not a mere toilet-fixer in Toledo , he doesn't refer to him as
> " Warren the Billionaire."
>
>
>
> Likewise, when McCain launches into his favorite refrain about "corruption
> and greed on Wall Street," he never fingers the perpetrators by their first
> names (or any name actually). And just think of all the possibilities there,
> from "Richard the Bankrupt" at Lehman Brothers to "Alan the Enabler" of
> Federal Reserve Board fame. Nor does McCain cite "Dave the General" when
> he's striving for greater credibility on military matters in Iraq . And even
> when he and Palin are warning us about that dangerous Chicago professor and
> Obama neighbor, they never just call him "Bill the Terrorist." We're always
> reminded of his proper name: William Ayers.
>
>
>
> So, if ex-Weathermen are entitled to have last names attached to their
> first, isn't it time that our leading pols got a little less familiar when
> addressing us ordinary folks, whether or not our real name is Joe? At the
> very least, they could stop trying to put themselves and so many of their
> fellow citizens into such silly, stereotypical, and ultimately meaningless
> categories, based on our choice of  beverage, occupation, or spectator
> sport. Among the hopeful signs associated with this year's presidential race
> are reports from around the country indicating that voters are not allowing
> themselves to be so easily pigeonholed. In fact, many seem poised to cast a
> vote for a candidate who's own personal history doesn't lend itself to the
> usual race, class, or ethnic profiling.
>
>
>
> With that positive development in mind, nothing would be more appropriate
> than a ban on "Average Joeism"—for the rest of the campaign and any future
> ones. Unless, of course, the candidates want to start addressing our
> "betters" with the same first-name familiarity they've heretofore reserved
> for us.
>
>
>
> *Steve Early* is the author of a forthcoming book for Monthly Review Press
> called "Embedded With Organized Labor: Journalistic Reflections on the Class
> War at Home." In any voter profiling of himself, he insists that his last
> name be used. He can be reached at Lsupport at aol.com <lsupport at comcast.net>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081019/62d0096a/attachment.htm