Let's Call the "Have-Nots" What They Really Are
by John Reit (March 9, 2006)

As far back as I can remember, our society has been classified in many different ways. According to income levels, you have the poor, the lower middle class, the middle class, the upper middle class, and the rich. Like most classifications, none of these tells the whole story about the individual. No one knows how a particular poor person became poor, and no one knows how a rich person became rich. But it's easier to classify people than to treat them as individuals responsible for their own destinies.

But perhaps the rule of identification that boils my blood is the liberal-favorite: the "haves" and the "have-nots." According to the enlightened ones, the "haves" are the rich who get tax breaks whenever their Republican buddies are in power and spend every waking moment spending their money on useless possessions while plotting the oppression of the "have-nots." The "have-nots" are everyone else. There's not even a break down as in the class system; no upper "have-nots" or lower "have-nots." You're either rich or you're one of the downtrodden saps who works for scraps from their tables.

What makes this classification so horrific is that the "haves" are always vilified. Why else does the U.S. Congress go after big oil? Why else would Maryland pass a health care law when the only company in its state affected is Wal-Mart? Politicians are constantly making themselves look like champions of the common man by taking on those who have achieved extraordinary success.

There certainly seems to be no justification for them to possess what they do. It had to have come by some ill-gotten shenanigans. They must have certainly taken advantage of more than one Joe Lunchbox along their path too financial prosperity. Or they probably inherited your wealth - wealth that was built off the backs of slaves kidnapped from Africa. Whatever the reason for their good fortune, they certainly don't deserve it.

Unless you're a member of a minority.

Michael Jordan, Michael Vick, Allen Iverson, Denzel Washington, etc. will never be thought of as "haves." Because they belong to racial groups targeted for discrimination, theirs is truly the only "earned" wealth. They managed to succeed in spite of constant obstacles purposely placed before them by "The Man." And since "The Man" is just waiting to take away everything they've earned at the slightest insult to white society (see O.J. Simpson), they are allowed to wear the victim label until they're six feet under.

But what really upsets me about the "have"/"have-not" category… the thing that makes me erupt like Mount Vesuvius on a laxative is that it's completely hypocritical on two levels.

For one thing, most of whom we consider the "have-nots" actually have plenty. Most own a house, a car, a washer/dryer, a DVD player, a color television, a computer, a dishwasher, a cell phone… I could list more, but my fingers are getting a little tired.

So what is it the liberals perceive that the "have-nots" do not have? Even our poorest Americans have more than the average European. Is it that most own a Honda Civic instead of a Mercedes? Is it that their televisions might not be 74-inch HDTV plasma? Is it that their homes have only three bedrooms instead of 10? Have we become such an envious society that being well off - being able to afford the basic necessities and then some every single day - just doesn't cut it anymore? As Bill Maher once said (before he switched to the Dark Side), "You can go hungry in America, but you really have to try."

Secondly, there isn't one "have-not" that wouldn't gladly acquire what the "haves" have. Most would love to be able to afford a luxury car, three-story mansion, swimming pool, and a staff of illegal immigrants to take care of our property. Why else do people buy lottery tickets? So they can live exactly as they do now, with the exact same amount and quality of personal possessions?

Let's say one of the "have-nots" was selling his house? Would he try and get the highest possible price and improve his situation? Or would he take a bid that grossly undervalues his property?

I can only assume that it is not hatred that is constantly hurled at the "haves," but rather self-loathing anger. The "have-nots" do not begrudge the concept of wealth. They would trade places with the "haves" at the drop of a hat. It becomes obvious that the "have-nots" are angry that they have not attained the same level of success. Even if they know full well that they have not worked nearly hard enough or made the right life decisions… that is not the issue. The issue is that there is someone out there who has more than they do. And that is something they cannot tolerate. In this land of great wealth and opportunity, their slice of the pie, while sizable, is not nearly big enough.

So, to make me more comfortable with this classification system, I've decided it's time to change the name "have-nots" to reflect a more accurate description.

From now on, those identified as "have-nots" will now be called, "have-plenty-but-not-as-much-as-the-'haves'-have-and-would-like-to-have-the-same-amount-of-wealth-as-the-'haves'-as-long-as-they-don't-have-to-work-as-hard-as-the-'haves'-or-behave-in-ways-that-would-cause-them-to-be-wealthy."

Come on! Let's all say it together. It rolls right off the tongue!