Looking at that chart, there are two obvious questions to be asked of politicians seeking to lead the country forward:
1. Why and how did the scenario portrayed by the chart take place?
2. What needs to be done to reverse the direction of that graph line to move the country toward a fairer distribution of financial benefits?
My perception from listening to the presidential candidates is that Bernie Sanders has made the clearest analysis of the why and how, and he has made proposals for countering the soaring inequality that address the issues the analysis has identified. The thirty second sound bites that are the building blocks of tv debates do not offer the opportunity examine the factual underpinnings of allegations, but I tend to believe Bernie's version of things because he has avoided acceptance of the compromising financial contributions from the 10% which all the other candidates in the race have succumbed to.
4 comments:
Even though I lean conservative, I agree with you that having so much wealth concentrated in so few people is a problem. I'm not sure whether any of my fellow conservatives will agree with me; I haven't talked to any of them about it. But it seems clear to me that this condition results in a weakened, shrinking middle class, and in a huge gulf between haves and have-nots. Even my cursory understanding of history tells me that this is a genuine Bad Thing, that creates seeds for discontent and even revolution.
But the minute you talk about "income inequality" to a conservative, s/he will react negatively and start thinking "socialism! no!"
I would like to see this discussion reframed in terms of restoring fair and equitable economic opportunity for all. That word opportunity is key, as from where I sit a core unspoken value of conservatism is that anyone should have equal opportunity. One could argue all day long whether conservatives actually play that out in their actions, but I believe it to be a value nonetheless. I think it is hard to argue that the lower and middle classes have lost economic opportunity since the Reagan years.
I am having a hard time reconciling your first and last sentences. I guess I may not fully understand what you mean by "economic opportunity".
Sorry Mike, I left out a pesky "not." I think it is *not* hard (i.e., it is easy) to argue that the lower and middle classes have lost economic opportunity. I am deliberately using "economic opportunity" vaguely.
Thanks for that clarification. One of the irritating aspects of the Blogger interface is that it does not allow editing of comments after posting.
Post a Comment