America’s problem is massive inequality – not ‘woke’ educated elites | Robert Reich
www.theguardian.com
Fake populists like Elise Stefanik (Harvard ’06) and Josh Hawley (Yale ’06) attack higher ed to protect corporations and the rich

Fake populists like Elise Stefanik (Harvard ’06) and Josh Hawley (Yale ’06) attack higher ed to protect corporations and the rich

More than a third of Harvard’s graduating seniors are heading into finance or management consulting – two professions notable for how quickly their practitioners “make a bag”, or make money, reports the New York Times*.*

Similar percentages show up in other prestigious universities.

…

In this era of raging income inequality and billionaire robber barons, the bags are gigantic. At Goldman Sachs they start at $105,000 to $164,000. At McKinsey, $100,000 to $140,000.

And that’s just the first year.

…

America’s corporate and financial elites have flooded American politics with money in order to receive government subsidies, bailouts, tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks – all of which ratchet up their wealth, entrench their power and make it harder for average working people to advance.

Trump and much of his Republican party are deploying criticisms of the educated class to pose as populists on the side of the people.

Consider Elise Stefanik, Harvard class of ’06 and chair of the House Republican Conference, who doesn’t miss an opportunity to attack elite universities and their presidents. Or Senator Josh Hawley, Stanford class of ’02 and Yale Law ’06, who calls the recent student demonstrations signs of “moral rot”.

It’s all a thinly veiled cover for their efforts to help the wealthy make even bigger bags while keeping everyone else – especially average workers – down.

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    10·
    5 months ago

    The only way to address this, short of a revolution, is by voting blue no matter who. I know plenty of people are unhappy comparing current Democrats to their ideals, myself included.

    However, with enough sustained Democratic control of Congress and President, the candidates would be forced to move further left in order to capture more of the vote. We’d also experience less backsliding from every flip to Republican control due to low Democratic voter turnout.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.worldEnglish
      105·
      5 months ago

      However, with enough sustained Democratic control of Congress and President, the candidates would be forced to move further left

      I keep seeing people say this and I never see it happen. Unless you count Fetterman pretending to be a progressive for the election.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        9·
        5 months ago

        That’s because it’s exceedingly rare for Democrats. Republicans had two terms of Reagan followed by H.W. Bush not long ago.

        The last Democrat elected to succeed a Democratic president was Lyndon B. Johnson, who succeeded John F. Kennedy in 1963 following Kennedy’s assassination. Johnson was then elected in his own right in 1964.

        You’d have to go back even further in history to find the most recent instance of a Democrat being elected to succeed a two-term president from the same party. The last time that happened was in 1836 when voters elected Martin Van Buren to follow Andrew Jackson.

        https://www.thoughtco.com/two-consecutive-democratic-presidents-3368109