Inclusion has put a challenge to the progressive policy community. What is an all-encompassing issue that nobody really knows exists? According to this logic, alternative and less familiar ways of framing rising economic inequality and insecurity aren't viable because they don't show up on the pollster's static list of "issues." But this ignores Perlstein's most important insight, that "the greatest politicians create their own issues, ones that no one knew existed." (An insight I couldn't help but notice that is very similar to my favorite one of the late philospher Richard Rorty: "the talent for speaking differently, rather for arguing well, is the chief instrument of cultural change.") Here's a shot: exploitation and economic fairness.

We've put up an analysis of the Hamilton Project's understanding of government and inequality. If you've been tracking our blogging on the subject, the thesis of the paper will come as no surprise: their attitude about government (it's incapable of doing much good) and inequality (it's probably fair and good for everyone, mostly) isn't particularly helpful.

A final note on the Hamilton Project paper. A little less doom and gloom, this time. Inequality, and the decoupling of productivity gains and growth in the median income, has not caused the Hamiltonians to reconsider their core beliefs about markets. They are generally concerned that living standards have not improved as much as one would expect, given productivity gains. But they do not draw from this well-known trend that there is anything either ineffective or unfair about how the market operates.

One last thought on the Hamilton Project- I believe they do not serve the cause of fighting inequality. Stay with me on this one. Take this statement: Industrial policies and direct market interventions can try to change the before-tax distribution of income. But ultimately such policies harm the economy—for example, excessively high living-wage laws can result in large job losses for low-skilled workers. Factually, I believe the statement is wrong. Government intervention in markets can promote the common good. Everything that's known about health care provision is a case in point.