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.
Hillary Clinton's take on what to do about inequality is weaker than Canadian hot sauce. (Photo: marcn/flickr)
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.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
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.