A man of dubious wisdom once said this:

“The richest people in America are getting richer. The big corporations’ profits are going through the roof. What is happening to the middle class? What is happening to working people in this country?”

That’s Democrat John Edwards, famous for his “Two Americas” stump speech. Billionaire-bashing has kept this feisty underdog polling strong against the hope-filled Obama and the well-oiled Hillary, even though his millions of dollars put him squarely in the privileged America of his own categorization.

See if you can put a name to this quote:

“The economy, while doing great for the people on Wall Street, is not necessarily translating down to the guys handling the bags and selling the tickets and serving you Cokes…”.

Edwards again? Nope. It’s Republican Mike Huckabee, whose momentum emerging from the Iowa caucuses suggests that the Democrats have not yet secured a monopoly on voters ignorant of both basic economics and the fact that the rich pay a proportion of the nation’s tax burden far in excess of their share of its aggregate wealth.

Huckabee and Edwards, though very different candidates, are the most incorrect at the point where their rhetoric converges. The campaign trail is littered with quotes like those above, and it is often difficult to distinguish who said what without direct attribution.

Railing against “overpaid” CEOs and “greedy” corporations, both candidates appeal to the “working class,” as if artists, doctors, academics, engineers, scientists and yes, CEOs and other businesspeople, are not “working” and are feeding like useless parasites off the fast-food cooks, janitors and filing clerks of the nation.

This kind of populist, rich vs. poor demagoguery seems to rise anew every election season, like some kind of washed-up zombie from the 1930s-era Dust Bowl.

The most dangerous assumption underlying populism is that in order to solve the so-called “problem” of income inequality, we must, in “Harrison Bergeron” style, knock down the wealthy through taxation instead of building up the poor by increasing economic freedom. Perhaps the populists’ Handicapper General is the IRS?

Such claims would actually make sense in some countries. Abuse of governmental power and the inequality of opportunity that results are the culprit, and they can result in inefficient, unfair political criteria for income distribution. Carlos Slim’s de facto telecom monopoly Telmex enjoys protection from the Mexican government, allowing the company to make billions off the backs of overcharged Mexican consumers. Igor Sechin, head of the Russian state-owned energy company Rosneft, benefited personally from the Russian government’s politically motivated breakup of Yukos Oil and the transfer of Yukos’ assets to Rosneft. Are these ill-gotten riches emblematic of unjust economic inequality? No doubt.

Unlike Mexico or Russia’s economies, American capitalism is — neo-Marxist tirades notwithstanding — not driven by differential power relationships or structural oppression. There are dishonest individuals (Dennis Kozlowski, now in prison) and dishonest companies (Paypal, still at large) who grift money through unscrupulous, obscure means. Theft and fraud by a dishonest minority should be dealt with harshly, but through individual criminal and civil prosecutions rather the arbitrary hammer of wealth redistribution, which sabotages the incentives that drive our economy.

American income inequality is not the same as Mexican, Russian or Chinese income inequality. By and large, it arises not from class immobility or government corruption but from economic freedom. Some will avail themselves of this opportunity better than others, and for their efforts they should at least be left alone, not punished for their success as populist politicians in both parties would like. What would the Seattle job market look like if Bill Gates, Howard Schultz, the Boeing and the Nordstrom families had not bothered to expand their businesses in search of profit?

Pinning all wealthy Americans as robber barons, as Huckabee and Edwards do, is as ludicrous as pinning all WSU students as lazy drunks. Stereotypes do not arise from thin air, but, as discerning people of reason, it is our duty to judge individually. We cannot let broad, lazy characterizations inform our attitudes toward anyone — not even Cougs and rich people.

[Reach columnist Russ Wung at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]