

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It's futile to hope that the GOP's gaggle of corporate-hugging, right-wing presidential candidates will seriously address the issue of rising inequality in our land. How about the Democrats?
Well, Hillary Clinton has warned that "extreme inequality has corrupted other societies."
Uh...yes. But what about our society? Clinton says: "We have to have a concerted effort to meet a consensus about how to deal with this."
It's futile to hope that the GOP's gaggle of corporate-hugging, right-wing presidential candidates will seriously address the issue of rising inequality in our land. How about the Democrats?
Well, Hillary Clinton has warned that "extreme inequality has corrupted other societies."
Uh...yes. But what about our society? Clinton says: "We have to have a concerted effort to meet a consensus about how to deal with this."
Huh? That's not an answer, much less a solution. It's a political tap dance around a crucial matter facing America. Why would she dodge a chance to swing away at a down-the-middle issue that's right in the wheelhouse of her party's populist strength?
After all, recent polls show majority public support for direct government action to reduce the wealth gap, from raising taxes on the superrich to raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.
Turns out there's one tiny constituency whose opinion outweighs all others on this issue: the 1-percenters.
Clinton and other top Democrats are weaker than Canadian hot sauce when it comes to embracing the real populism that voters want. Here's a possible explanation for that mystery: Only 13 percent of the superrich think government should take action to redress inequality.
These privileged Americans blame widening inequity on the very people losing their jobs, income, and wealth. They claim that hard-up people should simply improve their work ethic and character.
Why would Democrats care what these few elites think? Well, because meek Democrats like Clinton have become so dependent on rich people's campaign checks that they let them restrict the party's policies and message, thus alienating the workaday majority.
When both parties kow-tow to money, the people's needs are ignored, and politics becomes illegitimate.
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
It's futile to hope that the GOP's gaggle of corporate-hugging, right-wing presidential candidates will seriously address the issue of rising inequality in our land. How about the Democrats?
Well, Hillary Clinton has warned that "extreme inequality has corrupted other societies."
Uh...yes. But what about our society? Clinton says: "We have to have a concerted effort to meet a consensus about how to deal with this."
Huh? That's not an answer, much less a solution. It's a political tap dance around a crucial matter facing America. Why would she dodge a chance to swing away at a down-the-middle issue that's right in the wheelhouse of her party's populist strength?
After all, recent polls show majority public support for direct government action to reduce the wealth gap, from raising taxes on the superrich to raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.
Turns out there's one tiny constituency whose opinion outweighs all others on this issue: the 1-percenters.
Clinton and other top Democrats are weaker than Canadian hot sauce when it comes to embracing the real populism that voters want. Here's a possible explanation for that mystery: Only 13 percent of the superrich think government should take action to redress inequality.
These privileged Americans blame widening inequity on the very people losing their jobs, income, and wealth. They claim that hard-up people should simply improve their work ethic and character.
Why would Democrats care what these few elites think? Well, because meek Democrats like Clinton have become so dependent on rich people's campaign checks that they let them restrict the party's policies and message, thus alienating the workaday majority.
When both parties kow-tow to money, the people's needs are ignored, and politics becomes illegitimate.
It's futile to hope that the GOP's gaggle of corporate-hugging, right-wing presidential candidates will seriously address the issue of rising inequality in our land. How about the Democrats?
Well, Hillary Clinton has warned that "extreme inequality has corrupted other societies."
Uh...yes. But what about our society? Clinton says: "We have to have a concerted effort to meet a consensus about how to deal with this."
Huh? That's not an answer, much less a solution. It's a political tap dance around a crucial matter facing America. Why would she dodge a chance to swing away at a down-the-middle issue that's right in the wheelhouse of her party's populist strength?
After all, recent polls show majority public support for direct government action to reduce the wealth gap, from raising taxes on the superrich to raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.
Turns out there's one tiny constituency whose opinion outweighs all others on this issue: the 1-percenters.
Clinton and other top Democrats are weaker than Canadian hot sauce when it comes to embracing the real populism that voters want. Here's a possible explanation for that mystery: Only 13 percent of the superrich think government should take action to redress inequality.
These privileged Americans blame widening inequity on the very people losing their jobs, income, and wealth. They claim that hard-up people should simply improve their work ethic and character.
Why would Democrats care what these few elites think? Well, because meek Democrats like Clinton have become so dependent on rich people's campaign checks that they let them restrict the party's policies and message, thus alienating the workaday majority.
When both parties kow-tow to money, the people's needs are ignored, and politics becomes illegitimate.