Recasting Capitalism and correcting a course that the success of populisms, whether left or right, shows that it was only a drift has always been one of the most recurring theses from these lines, and always with a purely constructive ambition. Without going to judge whether the correct approach is a Democrat or a Republican, having both its pros and cons, the fact is that the good (excellent) news is that finally, the debate about that re-foundation has reached the highest level political debate.
It seems that there are finally politicians who have seen the huge fissures in the building, and are willing to talk about how to fix them before the building collapses. Again, here, colors are essential, and, as always, you will have to use red and blue materials combined in the necessary reform, applying each color where it is most indicated. Another thing is that the different companies of reforms want to impose a monochromatic painting that leaves more benefits to them personally.
The debate is already on all the covers (and in the middle of the electoral campaign), but in reality, it was not new, nor should it be …
It has been Democrat Elizabeth Warren who has lit the fuse of this debate, which has even echoed the prestigious weekly economic The Economist. However necessary the debate was, it cannot be denied that addressing it precisely now has its obvious and intentional electoral dyes, with presidential elections in the United States shortly. But the truth is also that inequality, on which we have written long and hard from these lines as a socioeconomic factor, has always also been a recurring theme among the Democrats, who later, for example, had already positioned themselves openly in favor of raising the taxes to the richest, so opening the debate about the re-foundation now has not just disentangled in its most common repertoire in recent times.
Because inequality is one of the main points that affects the Democratic to the state that it is necessary to refound Capitalism, and while there are different positions and reports on the subject in one of those debates that are eternal, what is undeniable is that the Capitalism has been progressively moving away from its most idealistic and foundational principles, from the sustainably essential middle class (despite the recent rally in its wages ), from the ethical interest of street citizens, and from the idealistic search for the common good. ; a distance mostly (not only) since the last Great Recession.
Citizens are not oblivious to all this, in the first place because they are the first sufferers to notice the consequences in their family economies. As a demonstration, popular discontent has been spreading throughout the socioeconomic system, and thus the more visceral anti-system sentiment continues to quote strongly upwards (yes, despite the recovery). And they are not only fickle surveys where people respond exacerbated without further reflection because the consequences measured in anti-system votes that we have all seen with the American (and Spanish) Dream shattered are also visible. And besides, electoral dyes apart, the foundational debate was warming up long before, even with former governors of the Fed taking off his mask after leaving the office and speaking frankly about the issue.
And what Warren peaks with winds in favor of re-feeding
It seems that the strategy of the Democrats could be to try to snatch Trump’s base stockpile of voters afflicted with the most anti-system sentiment, and therefore try to redirect that sentiment into their own positions. It cannot be overlooked that a constructive way of rerouting anti-systems to less self-destructive positions is precise to give them the confidence that this system still serves them, and that this is possible if a necessary reform is undertaken in the form of re-foundation. To do this, they must necessarily opt for inclusive and inclusive policies that make the anti-system again feel part of a system that can continue to improve their living conditions and socioeconomic well-being. Only in this way can the incendiary votes-cocktail-Molotov be replaced by constructive votes-cement-that-forge.
Thus, as you may have read in the link before the Economist, Elizabeth Warren really has a personal profile that makes her fully understand what she is talking about. This Democrat was born into a working family in Oklahoma, and she tried her best to make her stand out in her environment and become a law professor at Harvard. She is accustomed to difficulties and personal and professional challenges in her life, and, although she can agree or not with all or part of her approaches in general, the truth is that we must recognize that she has a great spirit of overcoming and great capacity for effort, which makes it a very good exponent to be able to appreciate that a system that fails to reward the middle-class citizens who strive is literally a dead system.
In fact, Warren’s most public image casts an appropriate assessment of his socioeconomic profile by the general public and the electorate, and the polls show that, if she was finally the Democratic candidate in the presidential race, she would get more votes of Americans than his opponent Donald Trump. Which demonstrates the success of the hypothetical Democratic strategy that we exposed before, and that from these lines we see sincerely as the only way out of the complex puzzle that is presented to this political formation if you really want to get Trump out of the White House (something else is that you leave on your own foot).
And it may be in accordance with its refounding intentions, it may be in agreement or disagreement with the policies proposed for it, it may be granted an appropriate socioeconomic profile for such a colossal task, but the issue is that Warren’s are neither much less just electoral words thrown into the wind. No, they are not just that, at all: Elizabeth has a plan, a concrete plan, and very detailed, by the way.