Does fighting for all Americans include fighting for the would-be oligarchs who fight to have the American Dream all to themselves?
I got this interesting email from Rebuild the Dream today. It read:
_When I say that those of us working to reinvent and rebuild the
American Dream are “deep patriots,” here’s what I mean: we are
truly fighting for “liberty and justice for all.” Not for some. For
_We don’t just fight against our opponents—we fight for them. We
fight for every American: no matter where you are from, what you
look like, who you love, or how much money you have. We believe
that everyone deserves access to the American dream._
Do you think they are right?. Did the top 1% do well between 1933 and 1980, when we went from having almost no middle class to having the most prosperous, large middle class segment of any nation? Would they do well today if we went back to the policies that built that middle class?
The track we have been on since 1980 is slowly destroying the middle class, pushing those in it down into the ranks of the working poor. Between 1980 and 2008, we went from 65% of Americans being solidly middle class to just 44% qualifying.
As the middle class dwindles, the money that once made it strong flows to the top. Naturally, that is VERY, VERY good for those at the pinnacle, the wealthiest 1/10th of 1% and above. But does actually fighting to benefit everybody hurt those at the top, or just not benefit them quite as much? Suppose we stay the course toward oligarchy? If all the wealth collects at the top, will America remain the economic powerhouse is became during the post-war boom? And so the question. Are those at Rebuild the Dream right that fighting for everybody includes fighting for the true best interests of the top 1% right along with those in the middle, and those below?