One of the fundamental miscalculations that I believe the chattering class, cocktail circuits, and wall street democrats keep pushing is that talking to regular folks about income inequality, wealth disparity and the war on poverty is not a winning message. This meme is pushed constantly by the Very Serious People who have proscribed deficit reduction in a time of economic depression as a solution to the ills caused by unregulated capitalism. Income inequality at the level we hold today has not been seen since the late 1880s in an era called the Gilded Age. More wealth is concentrated in the hands of 400 individuals in American than 160,000,000 citizens have combined. When I hear facts like that I get upset that we have allowed our country to reach this point. Yet why is it not featured prominently in our media?
Poverty is perhaps one of the least attractive topics to discuss in modern day America. It's not a prepackaged sound bite that can be consumed. Cutting Social Security was once one of those unattractive third rail topics that no one would touch but times have changed in recent years. Talking about income inequality in America will get you shunned from the media, beaten by the police, and chastised for not being realistic in an age where greed is not only good, it rules. It's just not an appealing message for regular folks to hear about how much they do not have or ever will have or how much food they will have to do without, or how wages are so depressed and have not grown with productivity since the 1960s, or how the 1% has captured all the economic recovery since the Great Crash of 2008. No one wants to hear about those things in modern day discourse.
We want to hear about rich peoples lives, how stupid republicans are, and messaging from our political leaders that assures us that us being poor isn't really the problem. It's all the poor people, brown people, black people, gay people, transgender people, minorities, uppity women, low wage workers, and immigrants who have been causing all of the problems in America.
You know what is an attractive message? Hate. It is easy to hate. Hate sells. Our tribe against their tribe. Our beliefs against their beliefs. It is far harder to find empathy with a person who is not in your own shoes. That is continually why the U.S Senate ( made of of millionaires ) and the House of Rep's ( Made up of Millionaires ) often neglects poor people in their conversations. Over 90% of Americans somehow believe they are considered middle class. Why? Because that is the messaging that comes out of Washington. In fact only about 5 - 10% of the population can be considered middle class in America. The more apt description of modern day people are indentured consumers, or working poor. That's not an attractive message though. Again - Hate is far easier to sell then any message about haves and have nots.
Yet (and this is a BIG yet) we need only look to history to understand that not only is income inequality a winning political message, but it is THE message that led to the Age of Prosperity in America. We don't have to travel back to the Great Depression but we will.
From From Wiki
(Somewhere my professor just cried)
Franklin D. Roosevelt's election as president in 1932 marked a shift in
power towards the presidency. Numerous New Deal initiatives were proposed from the White House and sent to Congress for approval, rather than legislation originating in Congress.[51] During the long administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933 to 1945), the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress. As a result the Democrats obtained 60 of the 96 existing Senate seats[52] and 318 of the existing 435 House seats;[52] hence the party now controlled two-thirds of Congress. The Democrats would continue to main this two-thirds control for the next six years.[52][53] While the Democrats still managed to maintain control of Congress after the 1938 elections, the Republicans––taking advantage of the Recession of 1937––were able to gain 81 seat in the House of Representatives and 6 seats in the Senate after the election, making it difficult for the Democrats to continue expanding New Deal programs.[54] Despite the Republican gains, the 1938 elections maintained a 72% Democratic majority in the Senate and a 60% Democratic majority in the House.
Populism in America is a winning message. When it is put in terms of shared prosperity, jobs, and a path forward to the American dream. It is THE issue that would win Congress back to the Democratic party but it is THE issue that the current politicians are avoiding like the plague. FDR was able to accomplish much of his agenda due to messaging that went to the poor, to the people on the bread lines, to those struggling to find work in an economy where there was 1 job for every 20 able bodied men looking for work. He was able to hold onto huge majorities in both the House and Senate because he was working against poverty and to end the depression. People wanted jobs and more opportunity and his administration delivered.
In fact if we must look to the most recent example of a huge win for populism or why talking about jobs, wages, and other kitchen table issues is a winner for democrats they need only look to the 2010 elections. What did the Tea Party campaign on? JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS. Where are the JOBS? That was their mantra and they rode in a tidal wave of faux populism put forth by their rich billionaire allies. Democrats could not win in 2010 because Obama and congress failed to live up to the progressive ideals they campaigned on in 2007/08. When you run a campaign that is slightly left of center and then govern like a 1980/90s republican you will not be rewarded at the ballot box. Hence a great many young voters, first time voters, 20 somethings, and college educated people stayed home during the 2010 mid terms. Third way politics was not a sexy message. Corporatism masked as populism is not a sexy message.
I would argue that Occupy showed that in American populism can be a power force and can draw thousands of thousands of people into the street. They defined the message of 1% vs 99% and articulated it in a way that appealed across all political walks of life. We saw the results of that messaging in Seattle when a Socialist ran against an incumbent Dem on the idea that 15$ an hour or a living wage should be one of the main priorities of the city. Liberal policies in America, issue by issue are extraordinary popular when you separate the speaker from the message.
If the democratic establishment embraced the message that America is a Less Equal place now instead of running from it - we would have electoral victories. If the democratic establishment boldly embraced progressive policies such as 15$ min wage, regulating the banks, stopping home foreclosures, a robust jobs program, medicare for all, and strengthening social security (that are in their platform but never acted on) then we would see electoral victories.
Anyone who will tell you that talking about Income Inequality in not a winning message politically does not know history or is quite content to ignore it. Populism wins when it is followed through with and people see a tangible difference in their lives.
Democrats should remember this.
I originally wrote this over a year ago and wanted to thank Bernie for listening.