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.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.