#media imbalance

[tomorrowusa]

It's the media, stupid!

No, I'm not talking about specifics of various news media outlets or nitpicking about particular stories or attitudes. The problem is the vast overall state of the media environment in the United States.

Kate Riga is on target with her blog entry at TMP. (emphasis added)

Democrats Just Can’t Compete In This Media Environment

[T]here’s one leading factor that Democrats absolutely need to respond to as quickly as possible to avert this kind of electoral disaster in the future: the media environment unequivocally favors Republicans. We don’t have a ton of data yet, and much of it is partial. But we can already tell that Harris performed best — that is, underperformed least — in the battleground states. In the places where her campaign flooded the airwaves with her messaging, put her on TV shows and radio stations and in local newspapers, scattered driveways with information flyers, positioned her beside local celebrities, she improved on the repudiation of Democrats that infected nearly every other state. In other words: In the states where she set up a temporary but pervasive media apparatus, she negated some of the nationwide drag. That speaks to the reality that most of the country is awash in right-wing propaganda all the time. For the olds, it’s Fox News and conservative radio; for the youths, it’s the right-wing manosphere podcasts and streams that Trump so assiduously courted all campaign long (plus soothing TikToks promoting retrograde gender roles, evangelical values and distrust of government regulation — think the trad wives and crunchy so-far-left-they’ve-looped-around-to-the-right content — aimed specifically at women). It helps explain Biden’s prodigious unpopularity, despite passing a ton of legislation that not only polls well, but has meaningfully improved people’s lives. It helps elucidate the consistent claims that people don’t know what Harris stood for, before and after she released her policy proposals. It’s a playing field that Republicans not only dominate; Democrats don’t even compete. They still depend heavily on traditional media sources that simply don’t operate the same way these right-wing PR arms do. And we know that these forms of media are powerful; they reach tons of people, and are seen as useful enough pawns that Russia has invested in some of them. This isn’t a novel observation. The Obama alums who started Pod Save America and the greater Crooked Media family did so after Trump won in 2016 specifically to try to build up a Fox News of the left. There are structural problems with mimicking this right-wing content beat-for-beat. The Pod Save guys, while open about their political allegiances, often criticize the party and its politicians. It would be much more difficult to recreate the fawning adoration of Donald Trump Fox News and those podcasts produce for, say, Joe Biden on the left. It requires creativity and investment, but I think Democrats and those aligned with them could do it. Voters say over and over that they prefer Democratic policies — even Republicans often vote for them when they’re standalone ballot initiatives. It’ll require a cultivation of talent, a saturation of these spaces, finagling how to wrest back the counter-cultural bad boy persona from those who are espousing a way of life most people consider retrograde, confining, divisive and exhausting, not to mention solely in service of the plutocratic elites that run the party. Obama was such a revelation because he hijacked technology in a way that was new and exciting for people, and it helped him micro-target low propensity voters. Trump has since taken that mantle. In the two and then four years ahead, Democrats have to find a way to get in people’s eyes and ears, to figure out how to make an affirmative case in these spaces that people would likely respond to if they were exposed to it.

It's not just Fox News – which is bad enough by itself. There are the rightwing talk radio stations dating back to the 1980s. They joined Christian fundamentalist stations which had been pushing social conservative positions since the 1930s. And now there are countless bro types who talk rightwing shit for hours at a time on their podcasts.

Apart from Obama's skillful use of social media when it was still new, Democrats have fallen behind with digital media. Most recently, Elon Musk bought Twitter simply to use it as a propaganda machine. Facebook and its sister sites like Instagram use algorithms which promote rightwing talking points.

There had been attempts to set up liberal talk radio. But they have been sporadic and met with mixed success. Al Franken set up a liberal radio network called Air America Radio in 2004. But it had only modest reach on mostly medium powered stations and ultimately filed for bankruptcy during the Great Recession.

We need to increase our news and information footprint in a major way and on multiple media platforms – and fast. Obviously that takes money and business talent. So if you find yourself next to Mark Cuban, Bill Gates, or Michael Bloomberg on a flight or in an elevator, have your pitch ready. If that doesn't happen, we need to start raising money on our own. Nobody said that freedom is free.

[daveyfvckingjacobs]

MORE LAST BINDING TWEETS PLEASE, I BEG OF YOU GOOD SIR. I MOST CONSUME LAST BINDING CONTENT LIKE IT IS WATER AND I AM A FISH WHO HAS BEEN ROASTING IN THE SUN FOR THE PAST 20 MINUTES. I AM A CLOCK AND IT IS MY BATTRIES I NEED IT🥺💖

I’d make a joke about clocks and oak hearts or water and swans but I’m not smart enough to make it work so just take the tweets

[thot-farm]

I don't have to say the trope. I love it. I need it. I breathe it.

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

The issue of power is so interesting (or something) to see because yes, from an economic perspective Taylor undoubtedly has more sway -- she's one of the most famous people on the planet, she's a billionaire, her every move is followed, etc. So I can almost sort of understand the concern, in another scenario, where some people may expect that she could crush her detractors (For instance, I'm thinking about how Harvey W. silenced his victims as a Hollywood mogul, or how corporate titans silence whistleblowers which I feel are analogies some people may turn to. Or maybe we've all just watched too much of the Roys on Succession.)

I said this in the tags of a post the other day I think, but I think some of the discourse is kind of conflating power with platform. And yes, Taylor undoubtedly has a bigger platform, again by virtue of her fame and position in the media/industry. But part of that is that she's visible in these areas, and her presumed subjects aren't, of their own choice. If any of these subjects ever chose to spoke out, or make art based on their experiences, or pursue opportunities in the media/public eye, they would absolutely be given a platform for it. (Going way back, think of how JM used the media to give his side of the story through his music and his interviews after their split. And I'd argue he was probably way more public/direct about it than she ever was.)

If any of these people decided they wanted their side of the story out there, it would be and it would absolutely be turned into a story. (And arguably that may already be starting but that's a whole other thing.) And this is just my opinion, but given that the subjects of these topics are often privileged white men, I'd argue that their sides tend to carry (more) weight regardless of their economic status in relation to her. If JM or JG or JA or HS wrote a book or a song or a script about their experiences, even only insinuating about her, it'd be the conversation. And not to be a cupcake about it, but the media seems to always want to find something to knock her down a peg about (which, sure, journalism's job is to hold people accountable, but that's not what always happens here and we know it), so they would absolutely give this the time of day, if they chose to put anything out there.

The thing is, I do see in a superficial way that there is there is a clear difference in their socioeconomic/celebrity status, and perhaps that's perceived as a power imbalance, but that's implying that she's dictating a whole host of entities out of her control, and I just don't think she holds the sway of those that some feel she does. Don't get me wrong, she's absurdly wealthy and has influence, but so do so many other people around her, including those who don't support her. (That's the wrong word for it, but I just mean, people who aren't in her circle/sympathetic to her.) And as I've posted about so so so many times before, THESE OTHER PEOPLE (men) ARE WEALTHY AND IN THE PUBLIC EYE TOO. They are all in careers that entail celebrity and involve their own influence in the media. These are not shrinking violets in private civil life who are like, grocery store checkout clerks. They're actors and musicians and media personalities who play the same game. And even the "poorest" of these subjects for the most part are millionaires who are far, far wealthier than any of us will ever be in our lifetimes. They may choose to stay off of social media or the press when it suits them, but they could absolutely make art or give interviews about their experiences and they would command their own kind of influence. (I'd also argue that they would be given a platform thanks to Taylor's platform, but that's another thing.)

I don't want to dismiss the influence of her wealth and stature in the entertainment industry, and I feel like that's kind of where the perceived "imbalance" comes from, but to be frank, I feel like if any of these other subjects spoke out, the media would be so quick to raise their stature in the press for the sake of clicks/controversy/what have you. Critics claim that Taylor can crush any story or person who goes against her, but I think given the breadth of stories out there about her at any given time (the NYT op ed, the jet stuff, the DM stuff, etc.) I don't think that's true; I think the publicity/clicks outlets get for covering stuff, even if salacious, outweighs any concerns over upsetting her or burning bridges. (Not saying that may have not happened, but... I think it would be more obvious if it were a regular occurrence these days.) If anything, 2016 through rep kinda proves that she doesn't have the "control" of the media that some claim she does.

But most importantly, THE ALBUM ISN'T OUT YET. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LYRICS ARE. Taylor gets accused of writing diss tracks, but she rarely does, and I don't think she's written an outright callout song since her Fearless/Speak Now days when she was a teenager/very young adult. Just about everything since Red on has been about her own feelings, experiences, etc. and not a literal "you did x and y and z and you're stupid and i hate you" song. She's not calling people out by name, and truly only chronically online fans are going to deduce who songs are about; five years from now, people discovering the music will just know they're bops (or depressingly sad breakup songs, as the case may be).

I don't know where I'm going with this, i'm talking in circles, it's just interesting how things are being interpreted or assumed so far. I fully acknowledge I'm a cupcake so I'm generally not going to jump to the worst conclusion about Taylor, but there's also curious sociological/gender stuff happening in these conversations. I absolutely think that if the roles were reversed and her exes were billionaire household names and she was an indie artist, nobody would ever talk about power dynamics. I think it's all moot because like so many people have said, I don't think the album is going to be what some think it's going to be, and I think it's going to be way more introspective/vulnerable/dark than what they assume a breakup album is going to be, though obviously I don't know anymore than they do. It's just funny because you never hear about this with other people. (Like, was there a big fuss when Kelly Clarkson wrote a breakup album about her ex-husband? I know she's not as wealthy as Taylor and her ex was probably wealthier than Taylor's exes, but she's someone with sway in the industry and is on TV everyday, but everyone kind of said "lol her ex was a jackass wow she writes sad banger ballads" and moved on.)

Anyway I don't want to start shit or anything, but I'm just giving my two cents about my observations of the whole media landscape stuff.

[yuriveteran]

every time you think i’ve hit rock bottom fr i’ll think of smth else to make it worse(im getting into star wars)

[liaisun]

some people ask for toxic yuri and then when you put the poison under their nose they're like wtf this could kill somebody

[thirteenemeraldcats]

10 characters from 10 fandoms!

tagged by @abubblingcandle and @kvetchinglyneurotic who are both so ridiculously talented as writers and SO ridiculously lovely as people that i am forever building metaphorical statues in their honour and tossing roses at their feet as they bow on the stage

Jamie Tartt (Ted Lasso)

Dick Grayson (DC)

Neal Caffrey (White Collar)

Prince Zuko (ATLA)

Peter Parker (Marvel Comics)

Morpheus/Dream of the Endless (The Sandman)

Buffy Summers (BTVS)

Spock (Star Trek)

Westley (The Princess Bride)

Donna Noble (Doctor Who)

I HAVE NO IDEA WHO HASN'T BEEN TAGGED!! (AGAIN!!) going to boop with no pressure @nativestarwrites @sighonaraa @fanficfanattic @orbitalpirate @anguishmacgyver @jamiepoptart

[swampthing07]

I can outrageously misunderstand things in ways you could never imagine

[sadistic-softie]

DINNER!

P-P-P-P-Put him in a rot cage! Scumbag!Eat shit bitch! You look fuc-king divií̷̹̌̆n̷̫̰͊͝e̸̢̦̝̻̥͓̳͛̾̋ͅ!

Put him in a hard place! I scratch your back! In re-turn, you peel off mḭ̸̹̒͗͗̅̕͝n̸͉̳͊̒͗̾͑̕͠ͅe̷̢̟͓̗̲̥͂̌͘!

I-I-I-I spit teeth on your grave! You just talk shit online! I-I-I-I.C.U on payday! Try to grow a spine!

S-S-S-S-Sycophant cyclical hyper-digital! Spiders shooting out of your guts! Apartment typical! A part of you that re-fuses not to suck!

I bet you fe-el just gre̴̮̞̖̼̮͚͂̔̎͘͝͠á̵̼̘̼̍́t̵̨̤̦͓͙̍ͅ! Well I feel sublḯ̴͈͈̈́m̶͕͊͠e̶͕̳͈̅̐! Rusted fingers through the grate! Telling me you’re all mine!

Y-Y-Y-Your head is on my hotplate!! P-Paired with a glass of wine-wine-wine!! In water up to your neckk!! You’re running out of time!!

I-I-I guess I got my hopes up I'm just his cash-to-make

Bo-Bo-Born inside a test tube I-broke-the-glass and ran away

Eat. it. it. is. good-for-you I assure you that there's more com-ing your way! Nothing much left to do except fuck it up in every sin-gle way!

I hope you like it! I put my heart inside it! No mat-ter what we do we all end up on someone elses plate!

(̶I̷’̴m̸ ̶a̷t̷ ̸a̸ ̵c̷a̵n̶y̶o̶n̶ ̵w̸i̵t̵h̸ ̶m̷y̴ ̴a̶s̶s̶ ̶a̴n̵d̷ ̷d̸i̴c̸k̸ ̵o̷u̵t̶)̶

[local-redhead-bookworm]

If I see one more person say that Hector deserved or wanted what Lenore did to him, I’m going to steal every left shoe in their house

[magicalgirlagency]

They're just playing pretend, right? Certainly Toei wouldn't commit an even deadlier sin than H*gtto did, RIGHT?!

RIGHT?!?!?

HiroPre's 40th Ep. (November 12th): Great Friends ❤ Eru-chan's Wedding ⭐

Synopsis: Suddenly, Eru-chan says: "I wanna marry Tsubasa!", so the others decide to organize a "pretend wedding" for her. But even after the play is over, Eru won't let go of Tsubasa's hand.

Look, I know what "playing pretend" is, but considering what happened 5 years ago, I cannot help but feel scared for how things will eventually turn out.

If what I think is happening IS happening...

...it better not be.

[twistedappletree]

Writing Lan Sizhui and Jin Ling fighting alongside each other is everything oh my god this is SO fun??????

power couple honestlyyyy 💞⚔️✨

[dirty-urie]

hi! not original anon about Mike BUT I do love him. I’ve spoken to Mike a few times for a while and he seems to be a really good dude. I’m not inclined to share exactly what Mike said, but it sounds like he came into Brendon’s life when Brendon really needed it, and helped Brendon sort of see things differently, and he’s happy now. And for various reasons, I don’t think Mike has taken advantage of Brendon at all.

Well then that’s phenomenal! I’m glad! This could also be Mike Viola ghostwriting but I’ll choose to believe it isn’t 😂 look, I really don’t mean any harm whatsoever to Mike, nor do I care that much (only because it’s none of my business). My other answer to why I dislike him was going to be “he doesn’t even play the viola,” but I only gave a more serious answer to assuage anyone’s fears that my distaste was rooted in anything worse than personal preference. He certainly doesn’t kick puppies or hate homeless people or anything to my knowledge. At the end of the day, it’s not something that affects me, and I do support anything that’s ultimately beneficial for everyone involved. I do appreciate you offering your perspective and also for being nice about it 😅

[moonspower]

i guess with the persona trailers dropping, anime and video game rp tags are gonna just be genshin, that honkai shit, and persona. :| yay.

[thehappyvet]

Just a reminder if you decide to illegally take a wild animal from the wild for yourself, even if you have the best interests at heart, you could be killing it.

If you feed it the wrong diet you can cause it's bones to break or other diseases associated with mineral imbalances. If you feed it too much you could cause issues associated with obesity including excessive fat stores.

If you aren't a trained wildlife rehabilitator you won't understand the importance of preventing imprinting or humanising. So you'll cuddle it, play with it, and let your pets play with it. So it will think it can only get food from humans, and that humans and domestic pets are part of its family.

If you take it while it's still young it won't learn the necessary foraging and social skills from its parents to survive in the wild. You might joke you don't even need a cage for it, but it isn't able to go anywhere because you've made it dependant on you.

If you aren't a wildlife carer or in the animal health industry you might not realise it's injured and needs treatment. This could lead to broken bones setting in ways that the animal can't perform normal functions and suffering from a life of chronic pain. Or it could lead to it suffering a slow and agonising death.

You might also not be aware that wildlife can contain diseases that can make you sick or even kill you. You could put yourself and your loved ones at risk of serious zoonotic diseases by bringing it home.

And, if you are found to be illegally holding a wild animal without the intention of rehabilitating and releasing it, the authorities are stuck. They can't release the animal because it thinks humans and domestic pets are friends. It can't forage for itself. It can't socialise with its own kind. It could have injuries or diet associated diseases that mean it can't perform normal functions, or is suffering from chronic pain. If they released it, it would die.

Is it fair for that animal that your choices have led to it not being able to experience its life in the wild as it should?

If you take something from the wild and intend to keep it, I hope this makes you think twice.

These kinds of stories are all over social media now, but none of them tell this side. They normalise putting a wild animal though an incredibly stressful experience purely for likes and engagement.

If you want to be a hero, get accredited to be a wildlife rehabilitator. Join an amazing network of compassionate humans just like you who understand that wild things should be wild, and do everything they can to get them back there.

If you find a wild animal and you're not sure what to do, call your local veterinary clinic or wildlife rehabilitation group. Trust that we have the knowledge to make the best choices for that animal. And if you want to make those choices, join us.

[capitalism-is-a-psychopathy]

Billionaires destroy more than they create

In a land often championed for its economic opportunity and equality, the American Dream promises that anyone who works hard can rise to prosperity. But for many in today’s middle and lower economic classes, that dream is fading, shadowed by a reality that feels increasingly rigged. At the heart of this issue lies a stark and glaring imbalance: billionaires, a minuscule fraction of the population, wield a staggering concentration of wealth and influence. This is not just an issue of economics but one that touches the foundations of democracy and fairness.

Imagine the economy as a massive machine, built to churn wealth throughout society. In an ideal world, this wealth would cycle effectively, where each part contributes and benefits in turn. But as billionaires amass wealth at unprecedented levels, this machine has come to function more like a funnel, siphoning resources from the broader society and concentrating them at the very top. This dynamic, driven by complex financial structures and tax strategies, isn’t merely an accumulation of personal fortunes but a systematic extraction from the economic potential of others. The capital that could have flowed through wages, education, and public infrastructure is often diverted into private bank accounts and shell companies, rarely benefiting the people who drive and build the economy day by day.

As wealth accumulates at the top, so too does political influence. Billionaires, with vast financial resources, can fund political campaigns, lobbyists, and entire networks of think tanks dedicated to shaping policy. Through these channels, they push for tax policies, regulations, and trade agreements that benefit the ultra-wealthy at the expense of middle- and lower-income families. Politicians, indebted to these donors, increasingly look to billionaire interests rather than to constituents’ needs. This creates a disturbing feedback loop: billionaires influence politics to further policies that reinforce their own wealth and power, leaving the broader populace with dwindling opportunities to influence their own government.

This concentrated power extends far beyond campaign finance and lobbying. With ownership over significant segments of media networks, billionaires control the narratives that millions consume daily. Through these media outlets, they shape public opinion, diverting attention from policies that would challenge wealth accumulation and pushing narratives that frame the ultra-wealthy as essential “job creators” or “innovators” rather than acknowledging their role in widening economic divides. Issues that might threaten their economic stranglehold are often buried, while others, that create division and distract, are amplified.

For the middle and lower classes, this confluence of wealth, media, and political power has a real impact. Stagnant wages, diminishing job security, and rising costs of living aren’t natural outcomes of a complex economy—they’re symptoms of a system shaped to benefit those at the top. Policies that could lift working-class Americans, like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, or better labor protections, are often stifled in legislative deadlock, thanks in part to the political influence of the ultra-wealthy who stand to lose from them.

So, as this cycle continues, the gap between billionaires and everyone else widens. The billions accumulated at the top no longer signify mere success but a barrier to mobility for everyone else. The middle and lower classes find themselves carrying the economic burdens, often working harder for less. Meanwhile, billionaires remain insulated, living in a different economic reality, one far removed from the struggles of the average American. This isn’t just an economic imbalance but a distortion of democracy itself, as the machinery of power and influence is pulled further from the reach of ordinary citizens and held more tightly by those whose interests rarely align with theirs.

Without addressing this imbalance, the promise of opportunity, the cornerstone of the American Dream, becomes less attainable with each passing year, not just for the lower and middle classes but for the nation’s future as a whole.

Addressing their manipulation

Billionaires and their advocates often employ a familiar set of narratives to justify their wealth and the structures that enable it. These arguments, framed in terms of the free market, capitalism, or fear of socialism, are not only misleading but often serve to distract from the deeper systemic issues at play. Below is a breakdown of these claims and the counterarguments that expose their flaws:

1. “It’s Just the Free Market at Work”

The myth of the “free market” implies that billionaires achieve their wealth purely through talent, innovation, and competition in a market where everyone has equal opportunity. But in reality, the U.S. economy is far from a genuinely “free” market.

Counterpoints:

• Government Subsidies and Tax Breaks: Many billionaires’ businesses rely heavily on taxpayer-funded subsidies, special tax breaks, and other forms of government assistance. Large corporations frequently lobby for policies that grant them tax advantages, including offshore loopholes and capital gains tax breaks. This creates an environment where they aren’t competing on equal ground but rather with significant state support, distorting the market in their favor.

• Anti-Competitive Practices: Many large corporations, especially in tech and finance, engage in monopolistic behavior, buying out competitors or using aggressive tactics to drive them out of the market. This concentration of power stifles competition, contradicting the notion of a “free” market where anyone can succeed if they work hard.

• Inherited Wealth and Privilege: A significant portion of billionaire wealth is inherited rather than self-made. Generational wealth compounds, giving the ultra-wealthy an enormous head start over those without similar family resources. This challenges the idea that wealth accumulation is simply the product of individual merit or a fair market.

2. “This Is What Capitalism Is Supposed to Look Like”

The argument here suggests that capitalism is an inherently competitive system, where the most successful rise to the top, benefiting everyone through innovation and job creation. This narrative hinges on the idea of “trickle-down economics,” where the wealth of the richest eventually spreads throughout society.

Counterpoints:

• Trickle-Down Economics Doesn’t Work: Decades of evidence show that wealth rarely “trickles down” to the rest of society in any meaningful way. Income inequality has only widened, with wages stagnating for most workers while billionaire wealth has soared. Billionaires tend to reinvest wealth in ways that concentrate their holdings, like in stocks, rather than in ways that benefit the broader economy.

• Wealth Extraction, Not Wealth Creation: Many billionaires achieve and maintain their fortunes through rent-seeking behavior—extracting wealth from existing resources rather than creating new value. Hedge funds, private equity, and real estate empires often profit by cutting costs (like labor) rather than by innovating or producing new goods and services. This dynamic benefits investors but hurts workers and consumers.

• Capitalism Can Take Other Forms: The capitalism practiced in the U.S. today, sometimes called “neoliberal capitalism,” focuses on minimal regulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and privatization. However, other countries demonstrate that capitalism can function with stronger social safety nets, wealth redistribution policies, and tighter regulations on corporate power. Nordic countries, for example, balance capitalism with robust welfare systems, ensuring a more equitable distribution of wealth and services.

3. “Without Billionaires, There Would Be No Innovation or Job Creation”

A popular myth is that billionaires are essential “job creators” and “innovators” whose wealth ultimately benefits society by funding new businesses and creating employment. This claim positions billionaires as indispensable to economic growth.

Counterpoints:

• Public Funding Fuels Innovation: Many of the biggest technological advances, including the internet, GPS, and medical breakthroughs, were developed with public funding rather than billionaire investments. Government research grants and subsidies often lay the groundwork for major innovations that billionaires later profit from. In other words, society bears much of the financial risk, while billionaires reap the rewards.

• Small Businesses Create Most Jobs: Small businesses, not billionaires or large corporations, are responsible for most job creation in the United States. Big corporations often eliminate jobs through automation, outsourcing, or consolidation. They may employ a large workforce, but they also tend to exploit workers through low wages, precarious employment, and cost-cutting measures.

• Billionaires Accumulate Wealth Through Wealth, Not Innovation: Many billionaires maintain their wealth not by creating jobs or innovating but by using their existing capital to generate more wealth, often through financial instruments that have little to do with actual economic productivity. Stock buybacks, dividends, and passive investments grow their fortunes without necessarily contributing to broader economic prosperity.

4. “Any Alternative Is Socialism or Communism”

When calls arise for higher taxes on the wealthy, stricter regulations, or broader social programs, the response is often to invoke the fear of “socialism” or “communism.” This argument seeks to paint any attempt at wealth redistribution or regulation as a slippery slope toward total government control.

Counterpoints:

• Social Safety Nets and Regulations Are Not Socialism: Social safety nets, progressive taxation, and regulations do not equate to socialism or communism; they’re features of a balanced capitalist system that seeks to prevent extreme inequality and protect public welfare. Countries like Germany, Canada, and Denmark combine regulated capitalism with strong social programs, resulting in healthier economies and greater well-being for citizens without abandoning capitalism.

• Inequality Threatens Capitalism: Growing inequality and economic instability can undermine the foundations of capitalism. A healthy capitalist economy requires a strong middle class with buying power, which excessive wealth concentration undermines. Reforms like progressive taxation, labor protections, and universal healthcare aren’t a rejection of capitalism but rather a means of stabilizing it.

• Historical Success of Mixed Economies: Many of the most successful and prosperous countries practice a mixed economy, where capitalism coexists with social policies that promote equality. The U.S. itself has employed a mixed economy model in the past, particularly after the New Deal, which implemented social safety nets, labor protections, and financial regulations that led to a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity for the middle class.

5. “They Earned It Fair and Square”

Finally, the idea persists that billionaires deserve their wealth because they “earned” it. This argument suggests that any policy aiming to redistribute wealth is fundamentally unfair, penalizing those who worked hard to succeed.

Counterpoints:

• Systemic Advantages and Wealth Hoarding: As previously mentioned, many billionaires begin with advantages—like family wealth or elite educational opportunities—that aren’t available to most people. Additionally, billionaires often employ complex strategies to avoid taxes, lobby for favorable regulations, and capitalize on government subsidies. These factors mean they haven’t earned wealth solely through hard work or merit.

• Billionaires Didn’t Build Alone: No billionaire operates in isolation; they rely on infrastructure, public education, and the work of thousands or millions of employees. A CEO’s wealth is made possible by a web of collective contributions, yet that wealth is rarely shared equitably. While billionaires might be rewarded for their role, their fortune is far from the result of individual effort alone.

In short, these narratives around billionaires often mask a more uncomfortable truth: today’s system is structured in ways that favor the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the broader population. Economic reform, rather than a threat to capitalism, is a necessary step to ensure a more just, equitable society where wealth accumulation doesn’t depend on privilege, influence, or systemic manipulation.

Making a change

Addressing the economic imbalance and the unchecked power of the ultra-wealthy presents a unique challenge, especially given the intense political polarization in the United States. For the middle and lower classes to push back effectively, they will need to build a coalition that transcends party lines and focuses on shared economic interests rather than divisive rhetoric.

1. Build Awareness Through Shared Issues, Not Ideology

The rhetoric around “free markets” and “socialism” often obscures real issues of economic struggle that affect both conservative and progressive working- and middle-class citizens alike. Instead of framing the issue in ideological terms, framing it in terms of tangible, shared grievances can help bridge the divide:

• Focus on Economic Inequality: Income stagnation, unaffordable healthcare, and housing insecurity are felt across the political spectrum. By shifting the narrative from “class warfare” to “economic fairness,” advocates can sidestep partisan language and emphasize the shared experience of economic struggle.

• Highlight the Impact of Corporate Power on Local Communities: Framing issues around how large corporations hurt small, local businesses can resonate strongly with both sides of the political spectrum. This approach often taps into conservative values around community and self-reliance, while also aligning with progressive critiques of corporate overreach.

2. Organize Around Labor Rights and Worker Protections

Historically, unions have been instrumental in improving working conditions and advocating for fair wages, and labor movements transcend political divisions. Many Americans—left, right, and center—share concerns about the erosion of workers’ rights, stagnant wages, and the declining influence of the average worker.

• Expand Union Participation and Labor Movements: Reinvigorating unions and expanding labor protections could give workers a stronger collective voice. New labor movements that focus on economic rights without overtly partisan language could attract support across the political spectrum, particularly when they champion issues like fair wages, workplace safety, and job security.

• Support Worker Cooperatives and Employee-Owned Businesses: Promoting models like worker cooperatives or employee-owned businesses can offer a compelling alternative to the current structure of corporate ownership without resorting to divisive rhetoric. These models prioritize local control and shared economic benefits, appealing to values of self-sufficiency and fairness.

3. Pressure Politicians on Key Economic Policies

A key to bridging the partisan gap is to focus on policies that benefit the broader populace rather than framing them as part of any ideological agenda. The majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, support policies like fair taxation, healthcare reform, and increased access to education when framed in terms of fairness and opportunity.

• Promote Tax Reform as “Fairness,” Not Redistribution: Instead of advocating for “redistribution,” proponents can push for tax policies that ensure everyone pays their fair share. Policies like a wealth tax or higher taxes on capital gains can be framed as holding the ultra-wealthy accountable rather than demonizing them, a stance that resonates with people who value fairness and personal responsibility.

• Advocate for Antitrust Legislation: Pushing for stronger antitrust laws to break up monopolies and prevent anti-competitive practices can appeal to both sides. For conservatives, this aligns with the values of market competition; for progressives, it aligns with corporate accountability and consumer protection.

4. Engage in Alternative Media and Independent Journalism

The ultra-wealthy often own or influence major media outlets, which can shape public opinion in ways that protect their interests. For the middle and lower classes to gain a clearer view of economic issues, alternative media sources and independent journalism that aren’t beholden to billionaire interests are crucial.

• Support Independent News Outlets: A growing number of independent news organizations are dedicated to in-depth economic reporting without catering to corporate interests. Supporting these outlets allows individuals to access a range of perspectives that help reveal the true impact of policies on ordinary people.

• Utilize Social Media Responsibly to Build Cross-Party Awareness: Social media, while often a divisive force, can also be used to spread information about economic injustice. When used responsibly to share facts, case studies, and stories of economic hardship, it can cut through the rhetoric and provide people across the political spectrum with a shared understanding of the issues.

5. Prioritize Voting Reform and Campaign Finance Reform

Money in politics is one of the core reasons why economic policies favor the wealthy. Bipartisan support for reducing corporate influence in politics is possible, especially when the focus is on fairness, transparency, and accountability in government.

• Promote Campaign Finance Reform as an Anti-Corruption Effort: Campaign finance reform, which seeks to limit the influence of wealthy donors and corporations on elections, can appeal to conservatives and liberals alike who are frustrated with the influence of money in politics. Instead of framing it as an anti-capitalist measure, framing it as an anti-corruption measure can attract broader support.

• Support Voting Reforms for a More Representative Democracy: Reforms like ranked-choice voting, ending gerrymandering, and preventing voter suppression can help create a political environment that more accurately represents the will of the people rather than special interests. By creating a more representative democracy, policies that reflect the economic needs of the middle and lower classes have a better chance of being enacted.

6. Create Cross-Partisan Grassroots Coalitions Focused on Economic Issues

Many grassroots organizations are focused on economic justice, but they tend to align themselves with one side of the political spectrum, often losing potential support in the process. Building cross-partisan coalitions that emphasize shared economic challenges rather than ideological differences could foster stronger, more united advocacy for middle- and working-class issues.

• Organize Around Issues, Not Parties: Groups like the Poor People’s Campaign, which focuses on poverty and economic justice, have successfully united people across political lines around issues that transcend party loyalty. This approach allows people to focus on their shared struggles, making the movement harder for politicians to ignore.

• Build Community-Level Alliances: Many economic issues are felt acutely at the local level. By focusing on community-level initiatives that address healthcare, affordable housing, and education, people can create practical, on-the-ground solutions that don’t require alignment with national politics. These local successes can serve as models for broader change.

7. Emphasize Civic Education on Economic Policies

Finally, bridging the gap will require education and awareness. Many people accept billionaire-fueled rhetoric because they lack exposure to alternative perspectives. Civic education efforts that focus on teaching economic principles, tax policy, and the influence of corporate power can empower people to understand the real impacts of current policies on their lives.

• Create Accessible Educational Resources: Podcasts, documentaries, workshops, and community discussions can all serve as tools for demystifying economic issues. When people have a clearer understanding of how things like tax policies and wage laws work, they are better equipped to make informed decisions.

• Promote Financial Literacy and Empower Individuals: Financial literacy programs that help individuals understand budgeting, credit, and investments empower people to navigate the economy more effectively. While this doesn’t directly address systemic issues, it gives individuals a greater understanding of the forces shaping their lives and can be a first step toward broader engagement.

By approaching these issues with a focus on shared struggles, fairness, and practical solutions, the middle and lower classes can work together to build a movement that transcends political divides. This movement can challenge the status quo without becoming mired in divisive ideological battles. The real strength of such an effort lies in its ability to unite ordinary people around a common vision for a fairer, more just economic system—one that serves all citizens, not just the wealthiest few.