It’s the Inequality, Stupid

In These Times

Sen. Elizabeth Warren presents her student loan relief bill as a choice between “protecting millionaires’ and billionaires’ tax loopholes” and “helping young people.” (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

FEATURES » SEPTEMBER 29, 2014

It’s the Inequality, Stupid

How to frame the ‘defining challenge of our time.’

BY DAVID MOBERG

Email

Print

When their margin of victory among working-class voters reaches roughly 20 percent, Democrats win; when that margin slips as low as 10 percent, they lose.

President Barack Obama said last December that inequality is “the defining challenge of our time.” Americans agree. A Pew survey from June found that 62 percent think the country’s economic system unfairly favors the powerful, and 78 percent believe that too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few large companies.

Campaigning against the ongoing takeover of the country by the superrich would seem to be a winning strategy for Democrats, then, as they struggle to hold onto the Senate and pick up a few governor’s seats in November. As a campaign issue, growing economic inequality plays to the Democrats’ image as the party of the little guy and to their brightest moments in power, such as the New Deal, when they made the country much more equal.

Yet with a handful of exceptions (see sidebar), Democrats are not talking about inequality. Raising the minimum wage—along with protecting Social Security, a campaign mainstay—may be the closest the Democratic Party has come to a national campaign theme on inequality. Overall, says Sam Pizzigati, editor of the online weekly on inequality Too Much, and author ofGreed and Good, “there’s certainly no great move among Democratic candidates” to make inequality their focus.

Why not?

Democratic political strategists argue that while inequality may bother Americans, it doesn’t move them to vote. Polling seems to bear this out. In a recent Hart Research Associates poll, 60 percent of swing voters reacted favorably to a Democrat promising “economic growth,” and only 36 percent to a candidate pledging to “reduce income inequality.” Candidates seeing those numbers may be wary of making inequality a central theme.

But while voters may turn up their noses at pledges put in those terms, that doesn’t mean that any populist message is doomed to failure.

Hart polling has also found that the goal of “an economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few,” beat out other popular economic goals, such as “the creation of jobs and America going back to work” and “a strengthened middle class.” Tellingly, however, it was the phrase “not just the wealthy few” that made the difference. Dropping it did not broaden the Democrats’ appeal to independents, as many “centrist” Democrats might argue; it narrowed the appeal. Given a choice between a Republican who promised to “grow the economy” and a Democrat with this more populist message, swing voters picked the Democrat by 22 points. Without “not just the wealthy few,” the Democrat lost to the Republican by 10 points. What’s more, adding “just the wealthy few” boosted support for Democrats among swing voter groups that typically skew conservative, including men, older voters and those leaning Republican.

To Hart Research analyst Guy Molyneux, this signifies that the most effective populist message today is inclusive, but at the same time draws a sharp differentiation between the 99% and, well, the rich.

Defining the 99% against the 1% also has the benefit of counteracting Republican efforts to divide and conquer working Americans. Since at least the “Southern Strategy” of the early 1970s, the Right has sought to divide working people by drawing lines between poor and middle-income workers, white workers and workers of color, and the native-born and immigrants. In particular, they paint the poor and people of color as lazy and undeserving. Of course, most of the poor work, and work hard—for too little pay—while many businesses show signs of pathological dependence on tax breaks, government contracts and lax regulations. Putting the spotlight on the 1% reminds voters who is really mooching off the hard work of others.

“If it’s the working and middle class against the poor, immigrant, and ‘undeserving,’ we [populist Democrats] lose,” argues long-time political consultant Vic Fingerhut. “If you’re going to tax me to take care of this bum, it gets more difficult. But Democrats discover that a lot of little guys vote for them when they stand up to the big banks. If it’s the working and middle class against the corporations, we win.”

However, the image of the 1% standing against the 99% understandably makes some rich people nervous. Centrist Democrats, reliant on close relationships with corporate and individual wealthy donors, want to comfort and reassure their check-writing supporters. Consequently, Democratic Party leaders, including Hillary Clinton, assert that “we’re all in this together”— fast-food worker and fast stock trader, hand-in-hand, presumably. This brings to mind a version of the 1930s rural populist joke about the elephant who shouts, “We’re all in this together,” as he dances through the chicken yard.

To the extent that Democrats rely on funding from rich individuals and corporations, they are more likely to do their bidding. And that tends to increase with time: Labor unions are more willing than business to back first-time candidates; as time passes, business contributions become more dominant. In other words, the rich help to create a political hegemony that defines the boundaries of acceptable debate for Republicans and Democrats alike.

The politics of the possible

Some strategists on the Left believe that in order to campaign on inequality, Democrats must first demonstrate that ameliorating it is even possible.

“Inequality is an abstract idea,” says AFL-CIO political director Michael Podhorzer. “What is not abstract is that three-fourths of working people can’t make ends meet. They need to hear that candidates are going to do something about that.”

Mobilizing working-class voters is crucial for Democrats, he argues, because they determine elections. As he explained to The Atlantic, AFL-CIO exit polls show that Democrats have won big in elections over recent decades in which working-class voters (defined as those making less than $50,000 a year) come out in force for Democrats. When their margin of victory among working-class voters reaches roughly 20 percent, Democrats win; when that margin slips as low as 10 percent, they lose. And this year, the margins and mobilization for Democrats seem dangerously low among working-class voters.

“They see the rich getting away with murder,” Podhorzer says. “Voters are ready to believe.” But the Democrats too often fail to offer something in which to believe. Podhorzer suggests pushing for “higher living or minimum wages, affordable student loans, progressive taxation, and restrictions on outsourcing.” Many of these pragmatic proposals are indeed on the Democrats’ agenda. The problem with this pragmatic approach, however, is that each of these proposals faces opposition—whether it be practical, self-interested or ideological—from factions within the Democratic Party (especially the Wall Street wing), from independents who might vote Democratic and, of course, from Republicans.

For example, increasing Social Security benefits and making them more progressive would reduce inequality in a concrete way. It could be financed by eliminating the cap on wages and salaries that are subject to Social Security taxes. But such a proposal would have to contend with the propaganda that has convinced many people that Social Security is in financial trouble.

Moreover, as important as they are—and as difficult to win—most current proposals to address inequality are small in relation to the scale of the accumulated income inequity of the past 40 years. Even raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would leave the United States behind pay levels seen in comparable industrial countries, and behind where the minimum should be set given changes in both prices and productivity.

In the long run, progressives cannot avoid confronting inequality, and that showdown is not likely to get easier as wealth grows more concentrated. Without campaign finance reform, weaning Democrats from corporate hegemony on key economic issues will be even harder. Though candidates can mobilize supporters in the short term with easily understood, concrete proposals, a moral and practical critique of inequality will be necessary to a create broader political appeal in the long run. Keywords can become touchstones of political movements, cultivated to carry a particular basket of meanings.

In this 50th anniversary year of “Freedom Summer,” for example, it is worth remembering that the Civil Rights Movement had concrete goals—such as voting rights and access to public accommodations—but it was also a political movement imbued with the broader, uplifting vision of “freedom.” Unfortunately, today the Right has appropriated “freedom” to mean, among other things, unlimited rights to guns, unfettered rights of private property and a right to act irresponsibly toward others. The progressive meanings of “freedom” have been smothered.

Along with freedom and democracy, the Left still draws on the Enlightenment ideals of the French and American revolutions.Liberté, égalité and fraternité serve as touchstones of progressive thought that extend beyond their embodiment in specific institutions. “Democracy” requires free speech and elections, for example, but it also carries a promise that is utopian, in a good way. Likewise, although most Americans associate the ideal of “equality” with movements of groups such as African Americans, women and gays for civil and political rights, it also serves as an expansive touchstone, a value yet to be realized in other ways—including economic—but one that needs to be recognized as worthy of a movement

DAVID MOBERG

David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff of the magazine since it began publishing in 1976. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. He has received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy. He can be reached at davidmoberg@inthesetimes.com.

Robert Reich on What's Really Destroying the American Middle Class

ECONOMY  

Robert Reich's Blog / By Robert Reich

Robert Reich on What's Really Destroying the American Middle Class

This is the first economic upturn in which 90% of Americans are worse off.

Photo Credit: Dale Robbins / Moyers & Company

September 29, 2014

I was in Seattle, Washington, recently, to congratulate union and community organizers who helped Seattle enact the first $15 per hour minimum wage in the country.

Other cities and states should follow Seattle’s example.

Contrary to the dire predictions of opponents, the hike won’t cost Seattle jobs. In fact, it will put more money into the hands of low-wage workers who are likely to spend almost all of it in the vicinity. That will create jobs.

Conservatives believe the economy functions better if the rich have more money and everyone else has less. But they’re wrong. It’s just the opposite. 

The real job creators are not CEOs or corporations or wealthy investors. The job creators are members of America’s vast middle class and the poor, whose purchases cause businesses to expand and invest. 

America’s wealthy are richer than they’ve ever been. Big corporations are sitting on more cash they know what to do with. Corporate profits are at record levels. CEO pay continues to soar.

But the wealthy aren’t investing in new companies. Between 1980 and 2014, the rate of new business formation in the United States dropped by half, according to a Brookings study released in May.

Corporations aren’t expanding production or investing in research and development. Instead, they’re using their money to buy back their shares of stock.

There’s no reason for them to expand or invest if customers aren’t buying.

Consumer spending has grown more slowly in this recovery than in any previous one because consumers don’t have enough money to buy. 

All the economic gains have been going to the top.

The Commerce Department reported last Friday that the economy grew at a 4.6 percent annual rate in the second quarter of the year.

So what? The median household’s income continues to drop.

Median household income is now 8 percent below what it was in 2007, adjusted for inflation. It’s 11 percent below its level in 2000.

It used to be that economic expansions improved the incomes of the bottom 90 percent more than the top 10 percent.

But starting with the “Reagan” recovery of 1982 to 1990, the benefits of economic growth during expansions have gone mostly to the top 10 percent.

Since the current recovery began in 2009, all economic gains have gone to the top 10 percent. The bottom 90 percent has lost ground.

We’re in the first economic upturn on record in which 90 percent of Americans have become worse off.

Why did the playing field start to tilt against the middle class in the Reagan recovery, and why has it tilted further ever since?

Don’t blame globalization. Other advanced nations facing the same global competition have managed to preserve middle class wages. Germany’s median wage is now higher than America’s.

One factor here has been a sharp decline in union membership. In the mid 1970s, 25 percent of the private-sector workforce was unionized.

Then came the Reagan revolution. By the end of the 1980s, only 17 percent of the private workforce was unionized. Today, fewer than 7 percent of the nation’s private-sector workers belong to a union.

This means most workers no longer have the bargaining power to get a share of the gains from growth.

Another structural change is the drop in the minimum wage. In 1979, it was $9.67 an hour (in 2013 dollars). By 1990, it had declined to $6.84. Today it’s $7.25, well below where it was in 1979.

Given that workers are far more productive now – computers have even increased the output of retail and fast food workers — the minimum wage should be even higher.

By setting a floor on wages, a higher minimum helps push up other wages. It undergirds higher median household incomes.

The only way to grow the economy in a way that benefits the bottom 90 percent is to change the structure of the economy. At the least, this requires stronger unions and a higher minimum wage.

It also requires better schools for the children of the bottom 90 percent, better access to higher education, and a more progressive tax system.

GDP growth is less and less relevant to the wellbeing of most Americans. We should be paying less attention to growth and more to median household income.

If the median household’s income is is heading upward, the economy is in good shape. If it’s heading downward, as it’s been for this entire recovery, we’re all in deep trouble.

Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President Obama's transition advisory board. His latest book is "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future." His homepage is www.robertreich.org.

ERIC CANTOR, PAUL RYAN & KEVIN MCCARTHY: PLOT TO SABOTAGE US ECONOMY WITH FRANK LUNTZ

Daily Kos

Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan & Kevin 

McCarthy: Plot To Sabotage US 

Economy with Frank Luntz

by keepemhonest

FRI JUN 08, 2012 AT 08:15 AM PDT

    On January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration.  

     In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.

The Guest List:
Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and
Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).

Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich

    During the four hour meeting:
     The senior GOP members plotted to bring Congress to a standstill regardless how much it would hurt the American Economy by pledging to obstruct and block President Obama on all legislation.

    These Republican members of Congress were not simply airing their complaints regarding the other party's political platform for four long hours.  No, these Republican Congressional Policymakers, who were elected to do 'the People's work' were literally plotting to sabotage, undermine and destroy the U.S. Economy.  

    Mitt Romney, who has hired most of Bush/Cheney Policy Advisers, and the GOP party believe they can defeat President Obama, take control of the Senate and maintaining control of the House of Representatives so long as the economic recovery stalls. So they are actively trying to make it happen ... and that's what hate-propaganda Minister Frank Luntz had in mind when he organized the January 20, 2009 covert meeting.  

     Republicans do not pay Frank Luntz to offer ideas for good policy to help America, rather, Republicans pay Luntz' to devise lies that will keep Americans dumb and ignorant to facts on policy. For decades Republicans have paid Frank Luntz to tell them (Republicans) what to say in order to brainwash 'the People' with lies and hate to destroy policy.

     Luntz does not use words to merely have Americans "change their minds."  Rather, Frank Luntz uses words intentionally to dumb-down Americans and fill them with lies and hate so as to brainwash and program Americans to hate a given policy.

     Frank Luntz, like many Hate-Propaganda Ministers, loathes the notion of honesty in debate.  Also, like many Hate-Propaganda Ministers, Frank Luntz wants total control ... total control even it if means destroying America.  So, Luntz uses the tactics similar to Joseph Goebbels: spread hate, lies and fear in order to gain control.  (More on Frank Luntz at the end of this Diary).

     Remember, for months prior to January 20, 2009, America had been losing over 750,000 jobs per month because of policies these same elected Republican lawmakers had enacted and their goal, their goal that night, was to plot ways to sabotage and undermine any and all legislation that would pull American families up and out of the economic calamity they [lawmakers] had helped create.

     Two months after their covert meeting where they plotted to sabotage the US Economy, in March 2009, Rep. Pete Sessions said Republicans should follow the model of the Taliban in its battles against President Obama.

     In the March 2009 interview with National Journal Rep Sessions said:

    "Taliban Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban.  Insurgency is the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with] the other side"

~Rep Pete Sessions, March 2009 to National Journal

    Rep Pete Sessions went on to say:

    "If they [democrats] do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become Insurgency ... I think Insurgency is a mindset and an attitude that we're going to have to search for and find ways to get our message out and to be prepared to see things for what they are, rather than trying to do something about them"

    Also, at their meeting they plotted to suddenly stop supporting any Stimulus Legislation, even though, theyall supported Bush/Cheney Stimulus legislation.

    At the meeting, Rep Kevin McCarthy said,
"We've gotta challenge them on every single bill."

"Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies."

    Remember, these same Republican members of Congress supported the very Bush/Cheney policies that caused America to teeter on the brink of the 2nd Great Depression and caused the 2007 US Economic Meltdown.  

Here's how they all voted:
-- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney January 2008 Stimulus
-- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney bailing out Bear Stern
-- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney bailing out AIG
-- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney TARP (sept 2008)
-- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney TARP (oct 2008)

   And these same Republican members of Congress:

Supported Bush/Cheney keeping cost of two wars out of the Budget.

Supported Bush/Cheney spending $4Trillion while giving Top 1% Tax Cuts; ignoring the fact that taxes pay for wars.

     Not only did these Senior members of Congress plot to destroy the American Economy more than it already was destroyed? They actually carried out their mission:  

    Every one of these Senior members of Congress have threatened Government Shutdown over things like:

- Funding planned parenthood,

- Raising the Debt Ceiling which, in-and-of-itself, would cause US Economic turmoil.

... oh, and stay current, these same House GOP members of Congress are still, today, threatening a Government Shutdown again over the Debt Ceiling.

    Last year, during the Debt Ceiling negotiations, Eric Cantor and Sen. Jon Kyl abruptly walked out of negotiations and refused to renew discussions with Democrats. As a result, America's credit rating was lowered which put a smile on Republican's faces.

    Senators: Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Ensign, and Bob Corker have:

- Filibustered more Bills (over 300) than any Congress combined in US History.  
- Voted NO on every single piece of Legislation brought to the Floor including:
NO on Al Franken's Anti-Rape Amendment,
NO on Lilly Ledbetter,
NO on Fair Pay Act,
NO on Anti-Outsourcing Bill (2010)

     How in the hell could any thinking American be against those Bills?  Seriously?!?

    Representatives: Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Rep. Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra and Dan Lungren have voted NO on every single piece of Legislation including:

 NO on increasing FEMA during natural disasters.

     These same failed Congressmen have been on tv constantly chanting the lie that they were guilty of ... the lie that "President Obama's policies undermine the US Economy."

Currently: Republicans Using the Transportation Bill to Sabotage the US Economy:

     If the current Transportation Bill expires June 30, there will be no funding for transportation projects and 1.9 million construction workers would lose their jobs.  Eric Cantor and Republicans in the House are refusing to act because Republicans would be overjoyed if almost two million Americans were added to the unemployment rolls this summer before the election.

Other Legislation used to sabotage US Economy

    Republicans in Congress refused to negotiate or even discuss passing President Obama's American Jobs Act that independent economists claim would create 1.3 million new jobs.  God forbid Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan or Kevin McCarthy support an actual Bill that would put people to work building needed infrastructure and provide funds to pay to rehire hundreds of thousands of teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public service workers that have been laid off in droves by cash-starved states.

     Republicans are gearing up block President Obama's 2012 Anti-Outsourcing Bill - which is a Bill to discourage the outsourcing of American jobs, which is due to come to the Senate floor around the fourth of July.

     The Washington Post reports that Republicans have made it clear that the Federal Reserve would face fierce Republican criticism if it takes further actions to stimulate the economy before the election. The Washington Post wrote that,

   Republicans... have expressed deep concern about measures taken by the Fed to support the economy -- and could be doubly upset if new efforts goose the stock market and are perceived to work in favor of President Obama's re-election.

Frank Luntz

     Like I said above, Republicans do not pay Luntz to offer ideas for good policy to help America, rather, Republicans pay Luntz' to devise lies will keep Americans dumb and ignorant to facts on policy. For decades Republicans have paid Frank Luntz to tell them (Republicans) what to say in order to brainwash 'the People' with lies and hate to destroy policy.

     Luntz is so good at lying, he even lies to himself.  In order to blur reality and not take responsibility for his devising the spread of propaganda through hate and lies Luntz told Matt Lauer

    "I focus on words that cause people to change their minds, change their behavior even change their attitudes."

~Frank Luntz 3/2011 in interview with Matt Lauer

    No, Luntz is not using words to merely have Americans "change their minds" -- Luntz is using words intentionally to dumb-down Americans and fill them with lies and hate so as to brainwash and program Americans to hate a given policy.

       Luntz has been the Republican Hate-Propaganda Minister since at least 1993 and his list of words to stop policies that help America are vast:

Don’t say “oil drilling.” Say “energy independence.”

Don’t say “inheritance tax.” Say “death tax.”

Don't say "Capitalism." Say "Economic Freedom."

Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Say Government "takes from the rich."

Don't admit Lobbyists are Collective Bargainers for Corporations. Say "Union Collective Bargaining steals your tax dollars."

    Luntz says people hate government so:

Don’t say “healthcare reform.” Say “government takeover.”

Don't say "Public workers." Call them "Government workers."

    For the 2012 election, Frank Luntz is training his failed co-harts in the Republican party on what Luntz says are "the three most powerful words to use" to con people is: "I get it."

Luntz says:

Don't tell Occupy Wall Street "you don't give a shit." Say "I get it."

Don't tell struggling Americans "you're on your own." Say "I get it."

Don't tell Occupy Wall Street "you should protest Wall Street." Say "You should occupy the White House."

   Yes, it is true, the House Republican Leaders: Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy met in secret and plotted to sabotage and undermine the US Economy ... I call them TRAITORS TO AMERICA.

     So, the next time you hear the GOP say "Obama wants to destroy the economy" or "Government Shutdown" ... remember ... as Newt Gingrich said after their four hour dinner on January 20, 2009 "You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown."  

   To Translate GINGRICH:
 "You'll remember this day as they day we became Traitors to the United States."

    My hope is that Americans and all members of Congress are reminded via twitter, facebook and all other forms of media over and over and over:

     Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage the US Economy on January 20, 2009.

TAGS

• Plot to Undermine US President
• Recommended
• Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
• Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
• Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA)
• Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
• Republican Plot to destroy US Economy
• Republicans Plot to undermine US President
• Sedition
• Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R)
• Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R)
• Sen. John Ensign (NV-R)
• Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R)
• Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R)
• Traitors
• Traitors in Congress
• 
  

“American Dream” Is Now a Myth: How Bad Policies and Worse Ideology Ruined Us

ECONOMY  

Salon.com / By Heather Digby Parton

“American Dream” Is Now a Myth: How Bad Policies and Worse Ideology Ruined Us

Once upon a time, Americans assumed they'd do better than their parents had. Here's why that's all gone away.

Photo Credit: Pavel L Photo and Video / Shutterstock.com


September 27, 2014 

Over the past few years of economic torpor and social despair there’s been a lot of discussion about the death of the American dream. This shouldn’t be surprising. In a time when people feel they can’t keep up or are falling behind, it’s hard to have faith in the idea that everyone can achieve a base level of security and provide for their kids to do better than they did. That was always the deal for working-class Americans, immigrants and middle-class alike.

Generally, people agree that the lack of social and economic mobility we see today — necessities for the achievement of the American dream — is a result of the dramatic income inequality that’s grown dramatically over the last couple of decades. There’s even a name for this phenomenon called the Great Gatsby Curve, which simply shows that the more income inequality there is, the less social mobility there is. As Tim Noah of the New Republic explained:

Economists have long suspected that you can’t really experience ever-growing income inequality without experiencing a decline in Horatio Alger-style upward mobility because (to use a frequently-employed metaphor) it’s harder to climb a ladder when the rungs are farther apart. [Economist Alan] Krueger calculates based on the Gatsby curve (admittedly, somewhat speculatively) that “the persistence in the advantages and disadvantages of income passed from parents to the children” will “rise by about a quarter for the next generation as a result of the rise in inequality that the U.S. has seen in the last 25 years

It’s doubtful that more than a handful of average Americans have heard of the Great Gatsby Curve but they do know that they aren’t getting ahead at the same pace as their parents did. Earlier generations started out with much less (there was less to have!), but the level of advancement over the course of a lifetime for average working people, whether factory workers or teachers or small business owners, was measurable and real. People who never thought of going to college had all their children graduate from university. Couples whose parents always lived in small urban dwellings bought big houses in the suburbs and retired from their jobs knowing they could live comfortably in their old age. Each generation did a bit better than the last, gaining more opportunity and living with more financial security. It wasn’t sexy but it was solid.

According to polling, including this latest one by the Public Religion Research Institute, the bottom has fallen out of the American dream for a whole lot of people. Only 42 percent of Americans still believe in it today and it’s not getting better:

Other polling has shown similar results.  That’s a sad comment on our country.

Oddly, that same poll shows that far more Republicans than Democrats believe the American dream is still operative, 55 percent to 32 percent. If you wonder why that is, perhaps it’s because many Republicans have a completely different definition of the American dream.  They don’t see it as a middle-class goal at all, much of it made possible by the promise of a decent education and secure retirement, guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.  No, they believe that the American dream is getting filthy rich. It’s not much different than winning the lottery or getting a slot on the Real Housewives of Galt’s Gulch.

Here’s a good example of how Republicans explain it to the rubes, in a piece called “In Defense of the Wealthy and the American Dream”:

The United States has 422 billionaires, nearly four times that of 2nd place China. We have a 15.3 trillion dollar economy. We have a standard of living that is the envy of the world. Why?

We have the American Dream and other countries don’t. This American Dream exists because we are free to pursue unlimited prosperity. What fuels the desire to pursue the American Dream is the right to keep the wealth you produce. Property rights are fundamental to the existence of the American Dream and to the continued success of our nation. It was intentional. Our founding fathers built a nation around individual liberty and individual property rights. Without these rights, there would be no 422 billionaires, no 15.3 trillion dollar economy, no high standard of living. These rights are the very foundation of America. Liberty and the right to keep your property (wealth) have, for generations, separated America from the rest of the world. It is the reason America has been considered by so many around the world as “the land of opportunity”.

He calls these 422 billionaires the “American Dream Achievers.” And if you too want to be an American Dream Achiever you must agree not to tax them or regulate their businesses or in any other way try to reduce the wealth inequality we know is causing virtually everyone else to stagnate economically. But have no fear, you can totally do it! Why, if you just work hard you can be the 423rd billionaire — out of 313 million Americans!

A few months ago David Leonhardt of the New York Times published a story that showed exactly where the real American dream — enough opportunity and security to live a decent life and make it possible for your kids to succeed — is in the most trouble. And ironically, it turns out that one specific group of people is being scammed by this absurd con game more than any other: Southern Republicans.

The results of this week’s poll on Americans’ pessimism about the American dream doesn’t break the data out by region. It does break it out by race and class, however, and it’s perhaps unsurprising that the most pessimistic, by a long shot, are the white working class and African-Americans. It’s fair to guess that an awful lot of those working-class whites and African-Americans hail from that red area on the map where their futures and their children’s futures really are grim.

And that’s largely thanks to the policies put in place by GOP politicians who are intent upon delivering for those rare “American Dream Achievers” — and nobody else. You can’t blame the African-Americans.  They know the score and don’t vote for these dream killers. The Southern white working class is another story. They’re participating in their own demise.

Heather Digby Parton is a writer also known as Digby. Her political and cultural observations can be found at www.digbysblog.blogspot.com.