It would have been hard not to notice either of those groups. It would also be hard to miss the faux arguments, and near shutdown, Dems recently staged over the tax-cut extension.
Grover Norquist nails the left in this Newsmax article:
“They hoped to say we’re for cutting taxes on low-income people and we want to raise taxes on high-income people. And once they were told that the votes were not there to raise taxes on small businesses and higher-income people, they lost all interest through the whole thing.”
Norquist, the Harvard-educated president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), says that such tactics are divisive. “They were trying to promote class hatred and division based on how much money people earn,” he explained.
“If they can’t have that then they are not interested.”
Norquist tells Newsmax.TV that he believes the entire issue was political theater to assist Obama in his re-election bid and to distract Americans from the real issues.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Norquist: Obama Used Payroll Tax to Whip Up Class Hatred
[Well, in this case it was only about that]
True, Norquist has it exactly right. But roots of this are much deeper than he suggests there. This is the Democrats’ platform. Back in Goldwater’s era, he knew exactly what Liberals were about. He wrote in his book “Conscience of a Conservative”, right at the beginning, that the problem is Democrats are obsessed with materialism. By that he explains that their entire platform is only concerned with the politics of economics, and I don’t mean the economy. The first chapter in his book lays it out just the way it was then and still is.
With a little assist from Goldwater. [Excerpts]
“The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man’s material wellbeing.”
Here is how Goldwater put it describing their class argument:
“The same judgment, though in the form of an attack rather than an admission, is advanced by the radical camp. “We liberals,” they say, “are interested in people. Our concern is with human beings, while you Conservatives are preoccupied with the preservation of economic privilege and status.” Take them a step further, and the Liberals will turn the accusations into a class argument: it is the little people that concern us, not the “malefactors of great wealth.”
Sound familiar? He then separates the wheat from the chaff:
“Such statements, from friend and foe alike, do great injustice to the Conservative point of view. Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man’s material wellbeing. It is Conservatism that puts material things in their proper place—that has a structured view of the human being and of human society, in which economics plays only a subsidiary role.” 
……. [he continues]
Secondly, the Conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man’s nature are inextricably intertwined. He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man’s political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.”
Then he nails the box shut with this:
“So it is that Conservatism, throughout history, has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other men, nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored. Throughout history, true Conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with “democratic” Jacobins. The true Conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy. And he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.”
He knew what many conservatives know today, or are quickly learning: Conservatism is not just a simple economic theory. It did not and could not survive in that vacuum, or else it would be no better or different than Liberals’ use of political economics as a tool. Of course, the media or Liberals never want you to see that larger picture about conservatism but only play along with their scripted politics to their preferred political ends. And they certainly will not admit the material obsession of the left.
We cannot mistake what we see in phony Republican corporatism and deal making for conservatism. Liberals like to substitute the latter for the former in their attacks on the right. In fact, just the opposite occurred over the decades; Republicans have increasingly divorced themselves from true conservatism, while playing only lip service to any core conservative principles when convenient or necessary. Thus, they diminished the brand. It is only up to conservatives to make a distinction because, frankly, no one else cares.
Enter stage left, Comrade in Chief
As if right on cue, Obama chimed in with his “This is not class warfare; it’s math.” Crapola. In reality, with Dems it is all about class and it is warfare. It is the fine art of using math, or politiconomics when convenient, to justify their ends.
He also said in his so-called argument against class warfare, which was actually a justification for it, that “the only pledge that matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution.” Well, since we see Obama does not take that “pledge” seriously, then I guess nothing really matters in his view. (his oath had a two minute expiration date) So now we have the left claiming class warfare is the tool of the right.
No doubt that is the same “class warfare” charge the Occupiers were making about the right while engaging in, you guessed it, class warfare. Their brainwashing agenda has now moved to labeling the right as the class warfare culprits.
These are just selected excerpts.
© 1960 by Victor Publishing Co., Inc., General Editor’s Intro. © 2007 by Sean Wilentz. Published by Princeton University Press. Reprinted by permission of Princeton University Press given to PrivateBullRight for this article.
You can also read chapter one at this link: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8388.html
Ref: Newsmax article http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/norquist-payroll-tax-obama/2011/12/22/id/421938
Class warfare – conflict between social or economic classes (especially between the capitalist and proletariat classes)