I can't disagree with one thing in Kuttner's view of exactly how the deck is stacked against the vast majority of Americans, now known popularly as the 99%, courtesy of Occupy.
Here's the link please read (short, simple, concise read) and then come back for discussion.
I'll do some summarizing below, but please,please do not take that as a substitute for reading his article, also worth sharing and distributing as you see fit.
The bolded headings are Kuttners defined specific challenges for the 99% and what follows the heading is my inadequate summary of his major points. Again, please read the original article
*The Discrediting of Politics Itself - which he sees as largely the fruit of a distorted media picture that furthers a picture of "symmetrical blame" in which the narrative of "both sides do it" fosters a perception that partisan bickering contributed equally to by both parties has led to gridlock and a broken political system. This picture of an almost irremediable schism leads to entrenched cynicism regarding whether having a vote even matters which then leads naturally to dis-engagement born of disgust.
*Compromised Democrats - how much of the public perceives Democrats who did not seize their moment of greatest victory in 2008, in which majorities were delivered to the Obama administration as a result of widespread repudiation of Republicans and their policies. Instead of utilizing the temper of the times and making an effort at widespread economic reforms, Barack Obama engaged in a pointless effort at bi-partisanship and as Kuttner defines it, "drank the Kool-aid of budget balance", thus leaving large parts of the Democratic electorate feeling disenchanted and like they had no real champion in the Democratic Party.
*The Reign of Politicized Courts and Big Money - Kuttner cites Citizens United and Shelby County vs. Holder as the decisions which enshrined the power of the malevolent force of Big Money and provided the tool of Voter Suppression as an enforcement club.
*The Collapse of Equalizing Institutions - This is primarily the loss of all the counterbalances that were created by earlier generations to offset the natural inequality of wealth and political combined, like regulation of financial institutions, affordable tuition, labor laws, unions, and a progressive income tax.
*Bewildering Changes in How Jobs Are Structured - Americans no longer have dependable long-term employment opportunities; a large part of our labor force has been mutated into independent contractors and contract workers and "gig" employees. The basic structure and social contract that previously existed between employer and employee has been rent, profits are not shared with employees. (Kuttner leaves unsaid but the point is still made that there is no public champion or Party promoting or working hard to secure better working conditions and an increase in wages.)
*The Internalization Of A Generation's Plight - Why aren't Millennials in the streets after being made the Screwed Generation who have been denied the educations, jobs and opportunities their parents enjoyed?
*The Absence of a Movement - Kuttner says we have a number of movements but no large, unified, Movement.
The remedies that would restore economic opportunity and security to ordinary Americans are far outside mainstream political conversation, and will not become mainstream until forced onto the agenda by a genuine mass movement. Sometimes that movement gets lucky and finds a rendezvous with a sympathetic national leader.
This has occurred before -- in the Roosevelt Revolution of the 1930s and the Civil Rights Revolution of the 1960s. But without a potent movement on the ground, mainstream electoral politics is likely to remain stuck with remedies too weak either to rouse public imagination and participation, or to provide more than token relief for today's extreme inequality.
That sentence I bolded overlaps and dovetails with an issue that was raised by Richard Escow in an article that I personally believe is seminal
More Evidence That 'Centrist' Solutions Will Not Save Us which I encourage you to read and which I diaried about
here.
The point made by both Kuttner and Eskow is that in all probability, ideas and reforms that would actually ameliorate the abuses and constructively improve the lives and economic conditions of the 99%, will never be raised in our next elections because the platform for what is "reasonable" and "feasible" and "doable" has been moved so far rightward in our country. Here is Eskow:
To address it [income inequality], we will need to change the terms of the national debate -- to begin with, in commentary and analysis. At a minimum, we must stop describing politically "feasible" half-measures as the "progressive" side of the debate. It is time for a genuinely progressive social and political dialogue to take center stage.
That means building an independent movement which is unafraid to call for the deeper shifts needed to reduce inequality -- and to keep our society whole.
My takeaway is this- we cannot rely on our politicians to frame the debate on income inequality for us. They already have and it is completely inadequate. We, the public, the 99%, the middle classes, the working classes will have to seize control of the discussion.
If no liberal lion or progressive leader arises to speak for us, we will have to speak for ourselves and tell our candidates when they propose window dressings, band-aids and half-measures - "No, not good enough. We want more."
If enough of us start saying it, the chorus will grow to be loud enough to be heard over the inane media diversionary chatter and to permeate through the so-far impervious atmosphere of unawareness and complacency that envelopes Washington, DC.