i read michael tomasky's march 6th new york review of books assessment of social democratic america by lane kenworthy. it describes nascent populist trends in democratic party politics. attributing them to: a)the president's recent focus on income/opportunity inequality, b)the influence and eloquence of elizabeth warren on such matters, c)liberal bloggers and msnbc, and d)the conspicuous hardships currently endured by the middle class.myself, having delightedly watched these topics becoming more and more discussed over the past two and a half years, i'd like to see some credit given to occupy wall street. remember, before occupy, this country had come to a point where reversing the sad stagnation of american upward mobility was considered an anachronistic, quixotic cause. relative to today, the phrase income inequality was almost never uttered by a strategizing politician or in the conventional media. it was considered a concern of fringe lefties, cambridge massachusetts types, and michael moore. at least at first, it was largely thanks to the crazy unpredicted spectacle of occupy, that suddenly journalists and political figures started talking about this stuff- props!
