Generation Y and Millennials seem to have decided that the problem with modern politics is our leaders do not inspire us. It's not Hillary Clinton's job to illicit a warm inner glow in me every time she opens her mouth. It is clear liberal romantics are unmoved. What is less clear is why that matters?
We are the richest country humanity has ever seen, and we are at our richest moment. Yet hardworking Americans keep coming home to "a plate full of worry." This is largely because over the last few decades the wages of the bottom 80 percent of Americans have fallen or stagnated while the super-rich rake in all the profits. We can do better, and we must.
The outcry is increasing and the voices are getting louder. These are historic times and no one can afford to sit on the sidelines any longer. Our issues and needs are too great, and if our members of Congress don't want to represent our interests, we must mobilize and ensure they are voted out of office and replaced by those who will.
A digital policy for the new century, tailored not just to the moment but for the future, is vital if we are to unleash economic growth, shared prosperity, and the full potential of technology for citizens and consumers. But such a policy architecture requires a new consensus -- on privacy, on security, on customer protections, on growth and mobility.
Voters are likely to remain dubious about candidates who offer only vague platitudes about key issues like jobs, wages, and trade without making firm commitments or offering specific proposals. The Maryland race has just begun, of course. But so far, it seems to point to the pitfalls of corporate "centrism" -- and the promise of economic populism.
The "People's Budget," which I helped draft, strikes a strong contrast with the Republican plan. It rewards hard work and invests in our country. It ensures that everyone has an opportunity to get a good education, find a good job, live in a safe and secure home, put food on the table, have affordable health care, save for retirement and maybe have a little left over.
One of the tiredest clichés in all of American politics -- and a favorite of D.C. "centrists" -- is that economic populism is all about beating up on the rich and redistributing income instead of pursuing economic growth. But Elizabeth Warren and her fellow progressives are not, either in rhetoric or policy, anti-growth or anti-business or out to "soak" the rich.
Staples' decision will undoubtedly renew arguments that the ACA's employer mandate has led to harmful effects on work. These arguments, like parallel narratives about min. wage laws and paid sick leave ordinances, are largely inaccurate, and advocates of evidence-based, power-balancing policy are absolutely right to debunk them.
According to former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers -- who is emerging as a key economic advisor to Hillary Clinton -- the big political challenge in addressing economic inequality is not to embrace "a politics of envy." No, Mr. Summers, it's not the politics of envy. It's the politics of responsibility.
We have become a profoundly unequal society. Unless we can build momentum for a new political agenda, we'll be divided into a small minority with fabulous wealth and a permanent underclass with few hopes or prospects. Unfortunately, our mainstream political dialogue shows no sign of adapting to these realities.