Progressives seek to secure the common good
I promised my readers a summary of the four TAP articles on progressive strategy, so here it is. Let me take yet another opportunity to say that the thesis of my book provides the physical and psychological underpinning for what these authors recommend. But I haven’t been able to find a publisher.
The American Prospect
04.20.06 - 04.27.06
By John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira
The Politics of Definition (the link is to a longer excerpt I posted on MakeThemAccountable.com, which has links to each of the four parts of the paper.—Caro)
The thesis of this report is straightforward. Progressives need to fight for what they believe in -- and put the common good at the center of a new progressive vision -- as an essential strategy for political growth and majority building. This is no longer a wishful sentiment by out-of-power activists, but a political and electoral imperative for all concerned progressives.
[T]he underlying problem driving progressives’ on-going woes nationally [is that] a majority of Americans do not believe progressives or Democrats stand for anything…
We need a new strategy of transformation for today’s progressive movement -- one based on definition, principles, and a sincere effort to secure the common good. We must pursue an agenda that is engaging and substantively important for both the progressive base and important target audiences; an agenda built on a platform of broadly shared economic opportunity and a clear stand on the side of middle- and working-class families…
The progressive coalition … has tremendous potential strength -- in many ways, it is a sleeping giant, containing as it does so many large and rising political forces. These groups, even though progressives have recently been underperforming among them, are potent enough to have kept progressives knocking on the door of a governing majority and competitive in a remarkably large swath of the nation.
Progressives’ weaknesses, on the other hand, tend to be among groups whose weight in the electorate is stable or declining. Conservatives and the GOP have built their current majority on creating ever-wider leads among these groups, compensating for their diminishing size. But even these very wide leads have only yielded the slimmest of majorities, leaving them vulnerable in most of the nation outside the Deep South and the most thinly-populated mountain states.
Progressives can therefore turn the GOP’s slim majority into a solid and growing progressive majority by doing two things: (1) remedying their underachievement among strong constituencies like Hispanics and single women; and (2) simply reducing -- not eliminating -- their wide deficits among weak constituencies like the white working class. Together, these changes would likely push most of the pure purple and purple-leaning red states into the progressive camp and put the red vulnerable states into serious play…
We offer a framework called the politics of definition. Our guiding strategic goal is to erase the “identity gap” as the first step to shoring up significant weaknesses among the electorate and starting the process of advancing a clear, concise agenda that appeals to voters across the spectrum. This approach is designed to simultaneously strengthen the progressive base and make improvements among key targets such as white working-class voters, Catholics, married women, and emerging suburban voters.
The politics of definition rests on the empirical and social reality that both passion and pragmatism must be employed to string together a coalition out of the fractious political dynamics of America today. We must find ways to harness both forces to build and sustain a progressive coalition out of a disjointed, nonideological political culture where many groups do not share common traits, beliefs or desires…
From our perspective, the basic philosophical argument that should guide our strategic process and inform our politics is clear: progressives seek to secure the common good. Securing the common good means putting the public interest above narrow self-interest and group demands; working to achieve social and economic conditions that benefit everyone; promoting a personal, governmental and corporate ethic of responsibility and service to others; creating a more open and honest governmental structure that relies upon an engaged and participatory citizenry; and doing more to meet our common responsibilities to aid the disadvantaged, protect our natural resources, and provide opportunities rather than burdens for future generations.
After years of conservative dominance defined by rampant individualism, corruption and greed in American life, the public is ready for a higher national purpose and a greater sense of service and duty to something beyond self-interest alone. The common good represents a clear break with the conservative vision of America as an aggregation of individuals pursuing their own needs with little concern for what unites us a people…
Common-good progressivism has both personal and governmental requirements. People must assume responsibility for their actions, treat others with respect and decency, and serve their families and communities. Businesses need to assume responsibilities beyond securing the bottom line. They need to take into consideration their communities, workers, and surrounding environments as well as their shareholders when making decisions. Government needs to pursue policies that benefit all and require sacrifices from all. Government should not serve as the defender of narrow group or corporate agendas and should instead seek to protect public goods that promote the national interest.
A primary goal of government in this approach is to ensure basic fairness and opportunity: the civil, legal, and economic arrangements necessary to ensure every American has a real shot at his or her dreams. Common-good progressivism does not guarantee that everybody will be the same, think the same, or get the same material benefits in life; it simply means that people should start from a level playing field and have a reasonable chance at achieving success.
Internationally, common-good progressivism focuses on new and revitalized global leadership grounded in the integrated use of military, economic, and diplomatic power; the just use of force; global engagement; new institutions and networks to deal with intractable problems; and global equity…
The common good serves as the overarching philosophical principle, helping to define a clear and optimistic progressive vision for the future. We believe that this common-good coalition -- a socially and culturally diverse group unified by a commitment to a higher national purpose and widely shared economic opportunity -- can become as important a force for progressive change in the 21st century as was the broad based coalition of Americans who came together to usher in the original Progressive Era in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
John Halpin is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Ruy Teixeira is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation, as well as a Fellow of the New Politics Institute.
- 's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
This sounds like mushy Liberalism to me.
Here is the alternative:
Now that we are there, we CAN demand that Government do what Government does for them. The above and much more yields the ethics behind Liberalism AND provides a kick in the ass to Right Wing talking head Apologists whom must be forced to end their bullshit attack on Liberalism.
The mushy “common good” referred to in this piece hides the real reason a Blue Collar Red State Republican must seek union with an Inner City Black Welfare recipient. It is not due to love or agreement on details. It is simply because:
IF Democrats propose bold plans for more cash for the majority
THEN it will only come to be if disparate groups act together.
Want proof? We had a troll on the other day who believes that after more than a half decade of Republican control of ALL branches of Government it is the Democrats who caused Oil Companies to raise their prices and garner record profits. With brain dead individuals like that even plans which directly improve the lives of the vast majority will require every vote in order to pass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope to finish a project today and can again get back to fleshing the above out, mapping Political Views, focusing on the profession and not the person, etc.
I should also note that I am well aware that forcing the phrase "take from the winner and give to the loser" is only a first step. It is designed to embarris all these wanna be "rugged individualists" who could not survive a paper bag attack. The very emotions depended on for Right WIng Success can be used to encourage union. Fighting for better wages for the job one does NOW. Beyond this, the Liberal heart and charity should be triumphed but not at the exclusion of pragmatism.
If you think Americans will go for...
... a "take from the winners" strategy, you're mistaken. Most Americans worship rich and famous people--most of whom don't deserve the adulation, I might add. The right wingers will accuse you of punishing the winners, and that will definitely strike a chord with most Americans--against you!
You have to show the unfairness of what the Bush administration has done, in terms of robbing from the poor and middle class to give to the rich. The fact is that the rich benefit disproportionately from maintaining businesss in this country, and they should pay disproportionately. When I discussed this with Bill Gates, Sr. he said instead of saying we have a "progressive" income tax, we should say we have a "proportional" income tax.
As to mushy, John Kennedy's call to ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country doesn't stir you at all?
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Carolyn,
Carolyn,
I’m a hopeless romantic. My heart bleeds. I tear up at nearly every movie. I stir so easily that when I worried about coming Oil Wars (before Iraq 1) I spent a decade of 7000 mile a year bicycle commutes and many more years of frenetic researching of softer ways to live so as not to take from others. On and on I could go but I will not put you through it. I simply know that others are not like me and I am devoted to winning them over to Liberalism or stopping them from defaming it.
What I have written above is something new (or new enough) and is always missed the first time around: Right Wingers ARE COMMUNISTS by their own rhetoric. (So are Libertarians.) THEY take from the Winner and give to the LOSER (themselves). Please think about this. It is the distillation of a lot of thought yet when written in such a short manner it is easily missed.
Do you want to stop a raving Right Wing “rugged individualist”? Ask them why they will not let the best man win? When they tell you they don’t do that, ask them why they vote for Anti Monopoly Laws. As they stutter, question them about why they vote for Time Limited Patent Laws. Etc.
As to the Progressive Income Tax: Yes I do argue http://www.democrats.com/node/7018 in places that it is NOT always a matter of taking from the Winner to give to the Loser. For example, I argue that Wars defend a Nation’s Treasure and so we should all pay that portion of the military budget (and interest on the debt thereof) in proportion to the Treasure we need defending. I further argue that employees are not created out of thin air. Parents need to raise kids for 18 years (without compensation) for the workforce and the military. Employers need to pay their fair share of that. Etc.
We need to stop middle of the road Talking Heads from framing Liberalism as hovering above Communism. America herself hovers BETWEEN the Mob and the Monarch and I will post on this soon.
I also need to post on the role of the individual in Right Wing and Liberal politics. Oddly enough I find that Liberalism comes to the aid of the Individual by NOT focusing on the Individual but rather their profession. By contrast the Right focuses on the Individual so that they can ravage that individual’s profession.
Please forgive me for hitting so many points. I am trying to finish some work and will have more time in a couple of days.
Jim
Right Wing Commies
I thought of a shorter way of saying this:
I have shown that Right Wingers are Communists by their own rhetoric. (This hurts them and helps us with moderates).
This makes Right leaning voters and perhaps even apathetic voters uncomfortable. Who wants to think that they take from the Winner to give to the Loser? Nobody.
This tearing down of Right Wing nonsense must come first, but once a partial vacuum forms here we are with our bright and shiny Liberalism which lays out WHY it is not really Taking from the Winner to give to the Loser ;)
(E.G. what I have noted above about the Progressive Income Tax. Raising children for the workforce and the military, etc.)
Along with all this Democrats must be direct. For example, press on every talk show, our stance on the Progressive Income Tax. Note that if we all pay an equal share as the Right wishes we each owe 20 grand per family member per year each and every year. Purge voters of their need to feel superior via the Right Wing Mythos of Winner Take All:
That is a construct of the Right and Democrats run from it. I say call their bluff! I do not think most active Right leaning voters will EVER vote for a fellow citizen until their boat is rocked a bit. They have curled into a cozy my #### don't stick ball and need a few eye openers. They WILL turn on the Right as the Right turns on them if we give them a way out.
Okay that was not shorter ;)
Once again Carolyn, you
Once again Carolyn, you start with an interesting premise, but then summarily dismiss any opposing or traditional Liberal views.
What makes you the be-all and end-all of what is good for Democrats? I believe that if you would spend a little more time exploring other points-of-view on this blog, you may just learn something about who we Democrats (and Middle Americans) really are.
I agree with Jim that John Halpin's "definition" strategy is sappy and leans towards DLC-like centrist pandering. It is also disingenuous to attempt to compare Halpin with John Kennedy. And what in the world does anything that Bill Gates, Sr. may have said have to do with anything?
Various pundits have been recommending that the Democratic Party "define" (or re-define) itself for decades now. Most grassroots Democrats are tired of "waiting for Godot," and want only to return to being Liberal American partiots with the morals and determination of the New Deal era. Traditional Democrats have always been about the "common good," or maybe you and Mr. Halpin have forgotten that basic plank of our Party. The DLC and their band of DINOs certainly has.
When Jim refers to economic "winners," he is speaking of the greedy aristocratic corporate thieves who have purchased our government. He is referring to their concerted efforts to destroy the Labor Movement in this country. He is referring to NAFTA, CAFTA, and the practice of "outsourcing" American jobs to third-world countries at below-market wages. He refers to wealthy tax cheats who are aided and abetted by bought and paid for politicians.
Middle Americans and grassroots Democrats will have no trouble with punishing con men, thieves, and war-mongering profiteers by taking from "winners" who cheated. It is not just the current PNAC-controlled administration that has perpetrated this travesty, but neoconservative crooks and liars going back to Raygun, Newt, and their ilk.
Once again Bill...
... you attack me personally because of what I believe. And what I believe is that attack mode sometimes works, but isn't what we should be using always.
Methinks the summary dismissal is on the other foot.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
You can take it for what
You can take it for what it's worth. It was not meant as a "personal" attack, but rather a counter-argument to your presumtion that your point-of-view is the final word on any given matter.
I have not attacked you for "what you believe," but rather have challenged your position. You make statements such as "Americans will not..." without explaining what you base this assumption upon. If you choose not to defend your beliefs, and instead reply with verbal barbs, then maybe you should reassess your positions.
You'll have to show me...
... where I said that this is the only way for Democrats to go. I post articles that I believe are interesting and thought provoking. I've never told anyone they have to do anything.
Ever.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Carolyn, I sincerely
Carolyn, I sincerely apologize if I have offended you, and I normally enjoy your posts.
The general subject of a "revised Democratic message" however, sends me into the stratosphere, mainly because our message hasn't changed substantially in decades. The DLC "message," on the other hand, is an anathema to Liberal Democratic principles and values. When people, such as Mr. Halpin, lend credence to the DINOs of the DLC by giving their "message" legitimacy, I tend to see red.
Again, I apologize for shooting the messenger.
I really don't think you read...
... the four parts of the paper. The authors were indiscriminate in their criticism of prior tactics.
I think their arguments have merit. That's all.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
And I think that may be a
And I think that may be a part of the problem with the general perception of the Democratic Party. I believe that we urgently need to "discriminate" the neoliberal DLC faction from traditional Democratic values and principles.
If I have misunderstood, and we are arguing for the same things -- such as a return to Democratic Liberalism, then I stand corrected. To me however, the bottom line is that it is Al From and his illegitimate DLC "leadership" who have fractured the Democratic Party. I further believe that they have done this deliberately, and are nothing more than an adjunct of the AEI/PNAC neoconservatives.
That's why I wish...
... you had read the articles instead of ASSuming things.
We do an awful lot of read/react around here, and not nearly enough read/reflect/react.
Caro
Carolyn, fyi I DID read the
Carolyn, fyi I DID read the entire four-parts of the "thesis." They have not really addressed anything that traditional Liberal Democrats have not always stood for. I assume very little, and it is you who ASSumes that I had not taken the time to research before commenting.
I have no desire to play this "one-upsmanship" game with you. I am only pointing out that pundits, such as your Mr. Halpin, do not recognize that the "Democratic message" has been usurped by posers in a very small, but very visible, faction of the Democratic Party.
Until we cleanse our Party of these DLC traitors, our true (and longstanding) "common good" message will continue to be overshadowed by their lies and distortions.
Now, since this is your blog, you may have the last word and I will leave you to your assumptions.
I don't want to "cleanse" the Party.
I don't think the Democratic Party will ever be ideologically pure, because that just ain't us.
But the way to "take over" the Party, which is what I'm aiming for, is to do just what we've been doing, which is to run primaries against the DINOs. And we're getting better and better at it.
Nevertheless, I agree with these authors and Michael Tomasky that we need an overarching theme, a theme that has begotten some of the most inspiring rhetoric in my lifetime, such as that from John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobbie Kennedy, Mario Cuomo, Teddy Kennedy, and even Barack Obama before he let himself be co-opted by the DLC.
I'm in this for the long haul. And in the long haul, more people will start to identify themselves as Democrats again if we inspire them AND THEN FOLLOW THROUGH on what we promised in our inspiring speaches.
Caro
Another way of saying it. (okay I'm on No Doze!)
Blue Collar Republicans need to shut their mouths or pay their 20 grand per family member per year each and every year. The word Conservative should sound as harsh as Liberal has been made to. The vast majority needs to grow up and Democrats need to talk to them that way (at times) when we try to get a good deal for the greatest number.
AND none of this matters when the DLC waters everything down so that the voter gets to decide between a raise in the federal minimum wage that is lower than the State VERSUS Two dudes kissing. Instead Democrats should go big as Bob Fertik Recommended. I have felt that something like the following would be nice for various reasons:
I expect that such straight talk would not dissuade present Democratic Voters with a heart and/or mind from continuing to vote Democratic. It would however diffuse some of the testosterone driven assault on the Democratic Party. Men need to be made to feel like mice for accepting the notion that they can only climb the ladder by LEAVING their present profession and moving to another. The Right has instead attempted to make them feel like their boss’s advocate during times when the boss needs the opposite. Ridicule has a place even if it’s not pretty.
This is not the only face of Liberalism but it is the critical one with respect to holding America on the slippery slope that made her great.
Finally, many voters will never do for another. They never will. Their clout however can be diminished by showing how little they contribute and how much they TAKE.
Jim, take a look at Robert
Jim, take a look at Robert Kagan's take on Liberalism vs. Autocracy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR200604...
Very interesting. Thanks
Very interesting. Thanks Bill. I read the beginning quickly but I’m still on caffiene and the need to finish so I will get back to it tomorrow. (Actually I may have an additional day to finish this so perhaps its Tuesday.)
One quick note. Both Grinch and my partner in one business mentioned how Aristocrats might actually do better for people than a faux Democracy. I suppose it goes back to the benevolent dictator idea. ALSO, a lot of mud exists in the water because Nations are Islands which interact. The Right often makes use of local truths like “if you tax that business then business will just go to another State.” All true as far as it goes BUT if one acts universally then upper tiers, for example, are forced to work for less or choose to dig ditches.
The sad thing in all this, is that words must be strong right now to stop this assault on Americanism, but you and I both know people in general are asking for but a reasonable piece of the pie. America in my view is either directly in the middle of a slippery slope or at the pinnacle with a slippery slope on both sides. Only vigilance and education can keep her there. With voting blocks “fat” on Democratic gains of the past and so easily swayed by symbols, America fell off her perch.
Thanks for the heads up. I will head back there tonight when I am printing everything up ;)
Although the article speaks
Although the article speaks mainly to the West vs. Russia and China, what I brought away from reading it, is that no matter how far "right" the aristocratic neocons go, they still must represent American Liberalism.
Our Founders, and the Constitution they put together, represent a purely Liberal break from autocratic tyranny. Contemporary Republicans have been slowly working their way backwards towards a form of greedy Aristocratic autocracy through influence peddling, and the outright purchase of favorable legislation.
How it must pain these Latter Day Republicans to be told that it is not Neoconservatism, but Liberalism, that separates us from Communism and autocracy.
I think people already know what Democrats stand for:
Democrats stand for helping people. We stand for Traditional Religious Values not Fundamentalism. We stand for Science over Superstition.
The gap we face is not an identity gap. It is a megaphone gap (no press), a numbers gap (no repetition of the numbers that change everything), a bold economics platform gap (non DLC diminished), a declaration of ethics gap (why is it valid to vote for a better life), and a drawing a line in the sand gap as to who we advocate for.
The electorate understands that Democrats stand for HELPING OTHERS.
Here are the problems however:
People will soon desire a higher moral calling. Even Lou Dobbs has been calling for the notion of America as a Nation first. This blog has consistently noted the need for more than America as a collection of individuals. The opening post's article adds it perspective. The devil is in the details and each detail has required a hell of a lot of work the fruits I see nowhere else but on Democrats.com.
And as always, let whoever is on the right track win all our hearts and minds so we can get back to building binocular telescopes, swimming rivers with our kids, painting the back of our aquariums blue, enjoying Sci Fi Friday, etc. instead of battling these Right Wing jerks who have gutted the Nation.
Jim, I believe that what may
Jim, I believe that what may be missing from these discussions, is exactly which Democrats we are talking about.
When pundits such as Halpin call for PR strategies to redefine the "Democratic message," they are apparently speaking to the self-appointed "leadership" of the DLC. To me, that is as pointless as asking the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party to redefine their extreme-right message.
Although people like Mr. Halpin may be well-intentioned, they can't seem to grasp the simple fact that the Third Way DLC-ers do NOT speak for grassroots Democrats, or Middle Americans. We don't need the DLC to change their message -- we need to replace them. They have no mandate or authority to speak for Democrats, and their "message" is counter to our Liberal goals and values.
Those who truly believe that "Liberalism" is un-American, and the "wrong" message for our Party to embrace, have succumbed to the neoconservative misrepresentation of the philosophy. As has been pointed out on many posts on this blog, Liberalism is the epitome of fiscal conservatism and social equality, and THAT is the true backbone of the American value system.
The PNAC neoconservatives of the Republican Party, and the DLC neoliberals of the Democratic Party, are working towards the same goal: a return to aristocratic autocracy. We don't need a "new message," we need to return to the values that this country was founded upon, and to resurrect the Liberal message that made the USA the greatest country the world has ever seen.
True enough.
Here is the thing that works with Blue Collar Religious Right folks I meet:
Talk of Cash.
And
A nod to the old time Christianity of the Golden Rule in order to get me out alive when the topic turns to Fundamentalism. They support it, I do not. When they try to bait, I do not follow, I just repeat. I leave a very loud bee in their bonnet and $4 a gallon gas prices does the same.
Social Liberalism only occurs AFTER a War. It doesn’t matter what kind of War. People just need to be reminded (usually in practice) why the framers set up a system in which we could stay out of each others hair. The electorate got their ego pump out of the Right’s rugged individual motif. They got their pound of flesh out of gays. Only havoc has ensued. People may soon again want peace and prosperity where we remain a united Nation in defense and economics.
Fiscal Conservatism makes use of a very ugly word (;-) but who can argue with common sense? Still, I think there really is a Liberal Economic View AND a Conservative Economic View which lie nearly on top of each other and brush elbows with Socialism and Aristocracy. I can only hope we get back to those kinds of debates.
Vietnam: the Far Left/Right,
Vietnam: the Far Left/Right, Taxes: the Far Left/Right
WAR:
Many on the Far Left learned during the Vietnam era that:
While the troops may accomplish something grand (like convincing enemy States that the USA will fight whenever asked), that reason alone was NOT enough to ask OTHERS to fight. I say Far Left because there have been times when the Far Left has been tempted to use OTHERS (the USA military) to come to the aid of OTHERS.
Many on the Far Right apparently never learned this as they cheered troops into Ireland or Iraq or whatever damned Country might someday attack us and so needed invading by other people’s Kids, Dads, Moms, etc.
TAXES:
Many on the Far Left ask that we Tax OTHERS TO HELP OTHERS.
Many on the Far Right ask that we Tax OTHERS TO HELP THEM.
The analogy to using the troops is strong.
The Democratic Party is a messy Party. It deals with reality. With People. It seeks to find the balance that makes sense. There are lines in the sands of ethics and Americanism which Democrats.com is finding her way to.
Stay tuned…
Carolyn, I seem to be the
Carolyn,
I seem to be the odd man out in this forum as nothing I’ve written seems to have grabbed your attention. I will bow out but will re-read the paper on the strength of your suggestion.
In their conclusion they write: “Progressives need a much clearer public identity that can convince broad cross-section of Americans that they have both the passion and common sense to address major social and economic problems facing out nation.”
I worry that this overstates a need, as Democrats remain in the majority in both the House and Senate with respect to the number of people represented. Also a shift of just 1.5% in the presidential vote would have swung that our way as well. .
Further, what I have been stumbling through is a concrete template for how, when, and why a Democrat may ethically, morally, and imperatively aid the vast majority via the voting booth. Something the Right attacked effectively over these last couple of decades and the authors of this paper hope to dispel with moralizing and the development of what I claim is already occurring here. My hope is to distill this down to a single page poster which maps political philosophies.
I understand that my words can nearly only be interpreted as me being brash. I have no problem being incorrect, but I can’t let what seems to be congealing here wither on the vine.
Jim
P.S. Wouldn’t it be nice if this was the World’s greatest problem: arguing over how to best help people ;)
Jim, when you get a chance,
please check this out.
http://tinyurl.com/l59ts
I found this link on Bill Maher's website.
It's the article he discussed on his show last Friday.
There's been an big increase in CEO salaries,
in spite of the Enron, Worldcom and other corporate scandals.
Simply put, the CEOs are drawing larger salaries, while the
lower tier ( 90% ?) workers are losing their jobs due to downsizing
and layoffs. Oh yes, the lady who helps my 86 year old mother got
a paycut, also.
Lord have mercy! This is the fuel that generated the American
and French Revolutions.
ManBitches
Thanks Karin
Until Conservative Men regain their balls, the vast majority of professions will fall woefully behind their potential wages.
These same men are NOT free to simply fold, as that would do their friends, family, and neighbors, a disservice by suppressing wages. In addition they encourage decadence at the top.
I will repeat the most important sentence possible in shutting middle of the road Conservative apologists up: Upper Tier Professions knocked the USA off the plateau of WINNER TAKE ALL when they collectively came together at the voting booth to enact Anti Monopoly Laws, Time Limited Patent Laws, etc.
If all the Manbitches that Rush is training wish to continue believing that upper tiers may stop Winner Take All but they must not (otherwise someone will call them a Commie) then Conservative Manbitches will continue to suppress wages for the vast majority of professions.
This includes the wages of those who extend quite a bit of Welfare to the populace: Cops, Firemen, Soldiers, Scientists, etc.