Why, then, have Sanders and Clinton spent so much time arguing over who would be tougher on Wall Street?
The most convincing answer is narrowly political: Attack the top 1 percent, and you get enthusiastic applause from a lot of Democrats in the bottom 99 percent. That applause tends to be muted -- even among Democrats -- when you call for helping the bottom 10 percent.
A third strategy would be to emphasize the challenges faced by the many Americans who have managed to avoid being poor, but who have struggled with stagnant wages and mounting bills. There’s a lot that could be done for them, including more generous parental leave and lower college bills. But 1 Percent progressivism gives them very little.
Sure, those who want to tax the rich and break up big banks can also support reforms to increase opportunity, reduce economic deprivation, and help the middle class. But emphasis matters. Both campaigning and governing require priority-setting and clear-eyed leadership.
Sanders and Clinton should stop competing to see who hates Wall Street more -- and talk instead about how to provide help and opportunity for the many millions of Americans who urgently need it.