Via Lambert, a takedown by Somerby pointing out that no one in the Democratic leadership seems to be all that concerned with the news that the nation’s wealth is now even more concentrated at the top.
As I’ve pointed out before, this is because it’s almost impossible for a working class liberal Democrat to get access to the policy level — unless you’re a union leader, and while you may have token access, you won’t get results. (How’s that card check thing working out, guys?)
No, Democratic leadership and media figures are part of the elite classes — and with rare exceptions, don’t care about anyone but themselves:
The rich have gotten a great deal richer. Everyone else has stood still.
At Slate, Timothy Noah has completed his series about this massive rise in inequality. We’ll likely discuss his work in the coming weeks. For now, we’ll only suggest that you ask yourself this:
In the face of that staggering social revolution, are you aware of any politics or political messaging on the left which has tried to encompass this revolution? Have liberal entities even tried to make the public aware of this change? Have liberal entities tried to build political frameworks in which average people of the left, the center and the right can see their obvious common interest in confronting this revolution?
Actually, no—you have not. And by the way: Average people of the left and the right are the joint victims on this vast grab of wealth at the top. Progressives will never be able to address this revolution as long as average people are split into two warring camps, with big dumb nuts like Ed Schultz and Sean Hannity encouraging the two rival tribes to despise one another.
Hannity serves the interests of wealth and power. Whose interests does Ed Schultz serve?
[…] Simple story: Average people of the left, right and center are getting eaten by the social revolution defined by Reich’s data. For example, they are all getting ripped off by the remarkable cost of American health care—a remarkable topic which went undiscussed in last year’s discussion of health care. Schultz suffered one of his most buffoonish moments in the course of that non-discussion (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/2/09). But no major liberal or mainstream press entity ever attempted to explain why health care costs are so stunningly high in this country.
Duh. Those remarkable health care costs are part of the social revolution defined by Reich’s data. But did you see a single Big Liberal really examine that topic last year? Did you see Rachel raise it? Big Eddie? Joan?We’re sorry, but no—you did not.
Our “liberal leaders” almost entirely come from within that top one percent. (From high within that one percent.) They display little sense of the problem defined by Reich’s data—and when they’re pushed, they tend to defer to corporate/major wealth interests. Over the course of the past several decades, the “liberal” world has produced nothing in reaction to the revolution defined in Reich’s data —no messaging; no frameworks; no serious outreach. Instead, our dumbest players—this would include both Schultz and Jealous—keep playing the same old songs, even when these songs serve to drive the electorate into rival camps. Even when they have nothing to bring to their claims of ongoing racism. People like this have little to tell you—so they keep singing these songs.
The conservative world keeps churning the points which defend and advance that vast revolution. The liberal world is a sad screaming mess. Schultz and Jealous are very weak players—but this is the tea we get served.
[…] The other side has highly skilled leadership working to serve plutocratic interests. Your side counters with buffoons, from high in that top one percent.
