We know where the Republicans stand on this. They all want to continue cut taxes on the wealthy, as always. They are not only content with wealth disparity, they appear to favor it.

AD

Hillary is a more complicated case. She and her husband have spent some generous time and care feathering their own nest. This does not, however, necessarily tell you that she would be maidservant to the rich as president. You might think you know that she can’t be counted on, but you don’t. Her case is that whatever degree of progressiveness she advocates for, it will be better than any Republican, and more likely to become law than anything Bernie proposes. You can scoff, but scoffing is easy. Legislating is hard.

AD

But before we get bogged down in the slow boring of hard boards (Max Weber’s famous description of politics), let’s linger a while longer on the question of where to put the hole.

If we can get the question of wealth disparity squarely at the center of the policy argument, we will have the debate we have been avoiding for decades. Oh there have been laments about the seemingly mysterious massive gap in wealth, and crocodile tears, and to-be-sures. And mullings about whether it’s bad, or not so bad, or an utter outrage. Now let’s have the actual debate that Sanders is driving onto the public stage. Let’s hear Hillary address this squarely. What, if anything, can be done about it, and will what we might try actually work?