As I wrote in Part I, Americans have a schizophrenic attitude toward inequality: mostly, we don't like it, but we also support policies that make it worse. How could that be? For one, inequality can be too abstract and normatively ambiguous, as Prof. Leslie McCall argues. It is conceivable that growing inequality is a just desert, if certain people are working harder. And in day to day life, most people aren't forced to think about inequality. The term economic inequality, as opposed to poverty or racial inequality, does not mean much to the general public. Moral and conceptual ambiguity may make the public susceptible to taking action that's out of step with their beliefs. Furthermore, policies that impact inequality- for better or worse- are complex. Prof. Larry Bartels argues that the tax cut packages may have been too nuanced for the public to easily grasp their implications. Another culprit could be the narrow set of policy options available to address inequality. Prof. McCall speculated that political elites may not be offering policies that would significantly reverse inequality. A skewed tax cut may be the public's only hope for some governmental assistance, even if it does worsen inequality. Negative public perceptions of government, particularly taxes, may be somewhat responsible. Pollster and strategist Stan Greenberg has done lots of interesting work on this subject. The public often blames government for social problems, and does not see how the government could or does make these problems better. Policymakers could tap or cultivate these attitudes to redistribute wealth upward, against the wishes of supporters. Perceptions of social groups may also matter. Our privatized-hybrid welfare state is an institutional arrangement conducive to the perception (and perhaps reality) that a smaller government is advantageous. Interest groups that use governmental power to redistribute wealth to themselves are seen as undeserving by groups that do not receive the same government benefits or protections. Profs. Jacob Hacker and Paul Starr have written considerably on this dynamic. Racial minorities and immigrants also tend to take the blame for worsening economic conditions, and any redistribution they may receive could be seen as undeserved. So what to do? I'd suggest an examination of why the public cares about inequality, as well as public attitudes toward government. That, for Part III.