Martha Stewart and Class Warfare

It's always something.  We've all heard the whining from those who say that the rich never have to answer for their transgressions.  They cite statistics that indicate that the vast majority of people in prison are poor minorities.  They say that the system sticks it to the poor while the rich walk away clean, thanks to their high-priced legal counsel.  There's no question that there's truth in this.  So it would seem that these same people would be shouting with glee at Martha's impending trip to the big house.  (Is five months long enough for her to learn the real meaning of the word "bitch"?  I digress.)
 
But noooo.  Now the claim is that this whole thing would not have happened were Martha not rich and famous.  You can't win with these people.  I can say with absolute certainty (I was a stock broker for a very short time years ago.) that insider trading a la the ImClone deal goes on ALL THE TIME.  So it seems reasonable to wonder why Martha was singled out, that is until we recognize that she crossed the justice department publically.  Then it makes perfect sense.  Her conviction is for lying, lying about a crime that, as far as the record will show, never happened.  Poor Martha.  Or maybe not.  She has quite a reputation for being an insufferable human being.  I don't know.  I've never met her.  But if it's true, this conviction may be an object lesson in the idea that what goes around comes around.  In any case, at the end of the day, who cares?  My interest in this matter is in the class warfare rhetoric that surrounds it.
 
People of all intellects cannot seem to get away from painting all manner of issues as originating or being ultimately adjudicated due to the socioeconomic status of those involved.  This is classic caveman thinking.  If the pundits are right, then it just indicates that most people in authority (police, prosecutors, etc.) put their team mentality above their determination of what is objectively right and wrong.  If they're wrong, then it indicates that they (the pundits) are unable to consider issues rationally without invoking their own team perspective.  Of course, like most things, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle.  Either way, the situation leaves quite a bit to be desired. 
 
The nice thing about the rule of law is that it allows us (no, it forces us) to consider situations without regard for the status of those involved.  That means that we have the tools we need to get beyond our caveman predilections.  Unfortunately, as is profoundly evident, this isn't enough.  What we now lack is the societal leadership to push us beyond class warfare rhetoric.  Once again, I find myself wishing for the same old thing - that the public would require more of the people who are put in positions of leadership.
 
Those who promote class warfare are panderers, plain and simple.  They benefit personally when people remain embattled against one another.  If we are going to make it to the next milestone as a species, we're going to have to render these kinds of people irrelevant.  What a simple formula - if you pander, you're out of the game.  Imagine what kind of world we'd have if the battle lines were drawn, not between the haves and the have-nots, not between the left and the right, but between the panderers and those who are sincerely interested in addressing social problems.   As John Lennon said, "It's easy if you try."