BREAKING. Flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet Hit by Ukrainian Missiles, Dead in the Water, Crew Evacuated

streiff reporting for RedState 

On Wednesday afternoon, Eastern, multiple Ukrainian sources started reporting that the Moskva (Moscow), the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, had been hit by two Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles fired from near Odesa. The missile is a native Ukrainian design based on the Russian Kh-35, but it has superior range and accuracy because it wasn’t designed in Russia. It has a range of about 175 miles and only entered active service in 2021.

This is how Forbes described the Moskva before Russia’s invasion.

Think of Moskva as a 12,500-ton, 612-foot mobile missile battery with nearly 500 people aboard. She packs enough anti-ship missiles to wipe out the entire Ukrainian navy and enough air-defense missiles to swat away any conceivable aerial attack on the Black Sea Fleet’s amphibious flotilla.
…
She packs 16 fixed launchers for P-1000 anti-ship missiles with a range of 300 miles, vertical tubes for 64 S-300 air-defense missiles with a range of 56 miles, rail launchers for 40 Osa missiles for aerial self-defense plus a bevy of guns—twin 130-millimeter guns that can hit targets 15 miles away plus self-defense guns. Torpedo tubes and a helicopter round out her capabilities.

The cruiser’s sensors make her self-sufficient as a missile battery. The ship’s Top Pair and Top Steer radars can peer out to 200 miles or farther. Moskva led the Russian navy’s seaborne assault on the Republic of Georgia back in 2008, protecting three amphibious ships that landed a battalion or two of naval infantry.
…
It’s not clear how many Neptunes it might take to punch through Moskva’s defenses. Nor is it clear how many Neptunes the Ukrainians possess.

We now have the answer to the last questions. Enough.

Though the sources reporting the hits were unusually trustworthy, they were Ukrainian (by the way, since this war started, I’ve found that official Ukraine sources are very conservative on their announcements and are more likely to lowball claims than puff them up) and I was reluctant to run a story without neutral verification. That came from Russian state media. This is via RIA Novosti.

The ammunition detonated as a result of a fire on the Moskva missile cruiser, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

The crew was completely evacuated. The reasons for the incident are being established.

Just to reiterate, the Russian Defense Ministry has announced the Moskva is heavily damaged, and the crew evacuated. Fire and explosives and no crew are not a good combo for a warship.

What can we take away from this incident?

First, with the crew evacuated, damage control is no longer possible. For a ship carrying in excess of 16 tons of high explosives in the missile launch tubes in addition to propellant in launch tubes, the odds of saving the ship approach zero. That is why I’d credit the claims of Moskva sinking. Even if it can be salvaged, the Russian naval facilities in Sebastopol can’t do the repair work required for Moskva to travel for repairs.

Second, if the account of the strike is anywhere near accurate, the discipline in the Combat Information Center was nonexistent. If that state of indiscipline exists in a fleet flagship, imagine what it will be like on something without an admiral on board.

Third, many experts asserted that it would need at least six Neptune hits to put the Moskva out of action. We know that isn’t true. Why it wasn’t true needs to be studied. Was the Moskva operating understrength? Was the crew operating at the usual slovenly standards we’ve come to expect of the Russian military? Was the ship’s design flawed? Are the defensive sensors not quite as effective as the manufacturer’s brochures might indicate?

Fourth, the Moskva has 6 of the Russian equivalent of the Phalanx Close-in Weapons System (CIWS). Yet two cruise missiles, precisely the threat the CIWS was designed to counter, leaked through. Was it the fault of defective equipment? Or was it “human factors?”

The politics of the sinking of the Moskva will be seismic. The Moskva is the ship that called upon Ukrainian troops on Snake Island to surrender during the early days of the war and received the memorable response “Russian warship…go f*** yourself” and had a Ukrainian postage stamp designed in honor of the event.

The one thing a totalitarian regime or someone who visualizes himself as a “strongman” can’t tolerate is ridicule, and the sinking of the Moskva will create plenty of that. So we need to expect major air, and missile strikes in Kiev as Putin tries to teach these Ukrainian недочеловек…you’d recognize the word in its original German, Untermenschen…a bloody lesson.

But every tragedy has a silver lining…if you look hard enough.

Hillary vs. Trump Redux?

2024 could be a bizarre replay of America’s most interesting presidential election in modern history

by Brandon J. Weichert for American Greatness

Former President Barack Obama last week made his triumphant return to the White House. It was a moment for the corporate left-wing media to relive its glory days; the event was treated with fanfare similar to that of the end of World War II. Yet it was a humiliating event for the current White House occupant, Joe Biden. 

While at the White House, Obama delivered a speech that was dismissive of his Democratic Party successor. At one point, he “jokingly” referred to Biden as “Vice President Biden.” 

When the speech ended, it was time for an ebullient photo-op with sycophants and Democratic Party functionaries alike. Smiling and in press-the-flesh campaign mode, both Obama and Kamala Harris appeared to box out the current president. Meanwhile, Biden, looking more like a nursing home patient than president of the United States, looked about the room for someone to notice him. 

Kamala Harris ’24? 

Clearly, Obama was signaling to all that the future of the Democratic Party is in the hands of Harris. Biden was merely meant as a placeholder; a convenient cudgel to knock former President Trump out of the way in 2020 and then to be discarded callously once this purpose had been fulfilled. 

But can Harris achieve the great victory she’d been tapped by the Obama cabal to accomplish for her party? 

This is, after all, a woman who couldn’t win the primaries of her party even though she was the darling of all its kingmakers. The purported “future” of the Democratic Party ultimately needed Mr. Magoo, Joe Biden, to save her flailing political career as it was crashing and burning in 2020. 

Today, Harris’ favorability rating is dangerously low for someone aspiring to be the next president. She has been tasked by the Biden team to handle some of the most difficult—insurmountable, from a Democrats’ point of view—issues. And from immigration to the current Ukraine crisis, Harris has handled none of them well. Arguably, she has exacerbated the crises by her mere presence. Her public appearances, at times, suggest she is even more incoherent than her reputedly senile boss! 

And for all the talk about Democrats readying to push Biden out and to force Harris upon an unwitting (and otherwise unenthusiastic) American public, Harris’ abysmal ratings and poor showing as a leader over the last two years suggest that whatever the party grandees may want, Harris is not up to the task. Therefore, much like Joe Biden currently, if Harris were to replace Biden in the middle of his term, she could also serve as a placeholder for someone else preparing to supersede her.

Could it be someone whose cackle is even more legendary than that of Harris? 

Enter Hillary 

Given these clear weaknesses on the part of Harris, it is possible that former First Lady Hillary Clinton is readying to run once more. 

Already, Clinton has been making the rounds on the major “news” networks to share her “wisdom” about the Russia-Ukraine crisis (which she helped to foster as Obama’s first secretary of state). Meanwhile, she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have restarted the controversial (and notoriously corrupt) Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). Founded after President Clinton he left office in 2000, CGI was designed for only two things: laundering foreign cash to the Clintons while laying the groundwork for Hillary’s “inevitable” presidency. 

While Hillary Clinton has kept a relatively low-profile in public since her disastrous 2016 defeat, she has not given up the ghost entirely. Instead, Clinton has been working quietly to restore the network that was shattered by Trump’s presidential win. By 2024, enough pieces will have been put in place for her to announce her third run for the White House. 

This is all but certain if Kamala Harris assumes the Oval Office after the expected disastrous midterm elections and predictably flounders. With little talent available to replace Harris as the frontrunner in 2024, Hillary will offer herself as the only one capable of running things; a steady hand to walk the country into the third decade of the 21st century. 

This, of course, will cause fissures and much backbiting within the Democratic Party. 

We’ve known since Edward Klein’s reporting years ago that the Clintons and Obamas don’t particularly care for one another. It was Hillary Clinton’s campaign, remember, that created the “birther” conspiracy in 2008 about Obama’s Kenyan lineage—a smear that, to this day, Republicans are wrongly accused of having crafted. 

After the nasty 2008 Democratic Party presidential primary in which Obama defeated Clinton, it was Michelle Obama who insisted her husband not nominate Hillary as his vice president (for obvious reasons) but instead give it to Biden and make Clinton his secretary of state. And throughout the Obama Administration, the two powerful families never truly got along. They merely tolerated and used each other for their own Machiavellian purposes. The last thing that either family wants is to see the other rise to dominate the DNC. 

From the moment she announced her run for president in 2020, Kamala Harris was the Obamas’ preferred pick. When she could not achieve victory, the Obamas shifted to Biden. But Biden’s presidency was never really the endgame for the Obamas. He was too old and too senile for them. Harris remained the bedrock of their strategy for the future of the Democratic Party. 

The Clintons, however, likely have other plans. And with Harris’ awful showing, there is a chance not only to wrest the DNC away from Obama’s Chicago clique, but possibly to restore the Clintons primacy in the party. Yes, Hillary will be 77 by then but, sadly, these days being old is not a limiting factor for running—and becoming—president.

The Trump Factor 

The only hitch for Hillary will be whether her old Republican nemesis, Donald Trump, opts to run for reelection. Just as in 2016, Hillary likely could beat any Republican nominee she goes up against—other than the gonzo real estate magnate-turned-reality-television-star-turned-president, that is. It is my belief that, unless the current spate of investigations into his finances and other accusations the Left has lobbed at the 45th president stick, Trump will absolutely run for a second term. 

For those wishing for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to run, if Trump is running, he will not. 

Trump has made it clear that, if 2016 was the political portrayal of his first bestselling book, The Art of the Deal, 2024 would be the real-world portrayal of his second book, The Art of the Comeback—and how fitting would it be for the billionaire to go up against his old rival, Clinton, once more? 

Thus, 2024 could be a bizarre replay of America’s most interesting presidential election in modern history. Only this time, Trump will be angrier and out for even more revenge than he was in 2016. 

Should Trump run again (which seems likely at this point), and should things continue deteriorating under the Democratic Party’s leadership as they presently are, then there is simply no way that Kamala Harris could make a serious run for president. At that point, lacking another viable, younger alternative, Clinton becomes the most likely Democratic Party nominee. 

And both she and Trump have unfinished business. 

Should Clinton run against Trump, it will be ratings gold and a made-to-order television spectacle. Yet, one can expect very similar results to 2016, if only because the Democrats will have so badly botched the previous four years. One thing is certain: 2024 is shaping up to be as wild of an election cycle as 2016 was. 

X22, On the Fringe, and more-April 13

 

Here's at least 1 news bit from today that doesn't involve me complaining on how slow things are being this week: Big rally in Ohio on the 23rd of this month! I was hoping there would be 1.

Here's tonight's news:

Why Regime Change in Russia Might Not Be a Good Idea

Why Regime Change in Russia Might Not Be a Good Idea

Politico Opinion

Russia’s great power status also may bolster the likelihood that a post-Putin Russia will remain autocratic. Personalist autocrats often promise to increase their country’s power on the global stage and use anti-Western and anti-liberal appeals to court their political base. Russia can drink far more deeply from this well of nationalist disenchantment than countries with less global reach.

But the prospects for a post-Putin Russia are not all grim. Russia is a personalist autocracy, but it is also a relatively wealthy one, which suggests that its prospects for stability and more open government might be better than expected. One well-regarded study found that it is hard to predict why and when autocratic regimes fall, but when they fall in relatively rich countries, they are more likely to become and stay a democracy.

Other features augur well for a post-Putin future. Russia’s high level of education bodes well for a greater political openness; Russia is better educated than any of the democracies in Latin America, for instance. In addition, Russia’s relatively ethnically homogenous and secular population — about 80 percent of the population is ethnic Russian — suggests that Russia could avoid the ethnic or religious conflicts that have often plagued more diverse countries after the fall of an autocratic government. These structural features are good predictors of democracy and point to a potentially more optimistic outcome for Russia that may counter the legacy of personalist rule.

Biden says he’s ‘not walking anything back’ on comments he made about Putin 

Beyond these structural features, the circumstances under which Putin leaves power will also go a long way toward determining what comes next. Should Putin be replaced by a coup, the likelihood of a transition to democracy is much lower than if he is replaced by a mass revolt. Svolik finds that following coups, only 1 in 10 personalist autocracies were replaced by democracies. The same figure is 4 in 10 if the ruler is overthrown by a mass revolt. Clearly, anyone rooting for democracy to take root in Russia should be sober about the prospects for a successful pro-democracy uprising. Of course, the prospects for political change are even lower should Putin stay in power.

In addition, who comes after Putin is also relevant. Leader personality and background are more important in foreign policy and during crises than in domestic policy. Putin’s obsession with Ukraine does not seem to be broadly shared among the Russian foreign policy-making elite. To be sure, members of Putin’s war cabinet are very anti-Western, but unlike Putin, they don’t have the same long record of viewing Ukrainians and Russians as the same people. In this case, policy toward Ukraine might be different with a different leader even if the successor comes from the inner circle. A leader who comes from outside the inner circle might offer better prospects for greater political openness in Russia as well.

Biden called for Putin to leave office, but autocratic politics is often less about the personal quirks or personalities of a single individual than about the nature of autocracy itself. A Russia without Putin that remains a personalist autocracy may disappoint those hoping for a Russia that is less corrupt, repressive and at peace with its neighbors. In the end, real political change in Russia will require more than removing Putin.

The Dystopian Future Where Women—and Men—Just Don’t Want Children

Perhaps it’s time women and men gave the good, old-fashioned nuclear family unit a try.

by Sarah Weaver for American Greatness

Most of the baby strollers my family observed on vacation in Savannah, Georgia were not transporting babies. Instead, couples perambulated about the city with . . . dogs. By the end of our vacation, we had counted more than 200 different dogs in strollers across the city. Seeing an actual baby in a stroller proved to be the exception, not the rule. 

The U.S. birthrate has fallen by about 20 percent since 2007, and shows no signs of recovering. Among childless adults, 44 percent of those under 50 say it is not too or not at all likely they will ever have children, up from 37 percent who said the same in 2018. 

Business Insider recently interviewed eight women in their 20s, 30s, and 40s about their “easy decision” to not have children. These women all say they found having children “comes at the opportunity cost of reading the paper in bed until noon on Sunday or gallivanting around Europe, pleasures that some women find crucial to their independence and self-expression.” 

Without children, 34-year-old Tasmin Turner said, “I’ve been able to move across the country and back again based only on my wants and needs.” 

“It’s a sign of economic progress, signaling a rise in individualism and women’s autonomy,” the article continues. No doubt economics has a lot to do with this trend, but if this is progress, society should consider regress for a change. 

“In postfeminist America,” New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote in 2009, “men are happier than women.” New research at the time had found that despite being more “liberated” than they had been 30 years ago, women were drastically less happy. Such a finding would seem counterintuitive if you believed the stories of the career-fulfilled, well-traveled women interviewed by Business Insider. 

The sorts of women Business Insider profiled understand that their biological clocks mean that postponing childbearing may mean foregoing the possibility of motherhood entirely, but they resolutely live in the moment. “I have thought about maybe regretting the decision one day, but would rather regret it later than choose to have a child now without really wanting one and resenting them for it,” 31-year-old Brittany said. 

The story also notes how many modern women with children now wish their offspring did not exist. As a sign of the times, consider that a Facebook page called “I Regret Having Children” has 45,811 followers. When I checked the page, the top post was from a regretful mother of three. “[T]hese three are awful!!!” she complained. “I am seriously considering leaving them with their dad. Moving to another place, a place where I can work back on me, my mental health.” A male commenter on the post validated this mother’s hate towards her children. “Sounds like you need a break! Children are awful soul suckers,” he said. 

Jennifer Matthieu told Business Insider she decided not to have children after watching her career-minded mother “juggle” work and family. Posing wine glass in hand with her dog, she says she knew from the early age of 11 that she didn’t want to have children. According to the story, Jennifer attributes her decision for a childless future “to her unconventional upbringing, in which her father acted as the primary parent since her mother often prioritized her high-profile career over family.” 

But these women are unable to deny their biological desires to be mothers. Their maternal instincts are merely directed elsewhere. 

As Business Insider points out, “For some women, a career is their baby.” But these same women, assuring the world that their feminist dreams have left them happy and fulfilled, will fastidiously attend to their “plant babies” and no one in their lives will tell them they’re fooling themselves. More than likely, they will become one of the millions of women taking antidepressants or subjected to themyriad of adverse health effects associated with the birth control pill, a staple of modern women seeking to remain childless. 

Traveling the world and climbing the corporate ladder, while fine objectives in and of themselves, have not been enough to make most women as happy as was the resolute promise of the feminist and sexual revolution. Perhaps it’s time women and men gave the good old fashioned nuclear family unit a try.

Real Wages Fall Again as Inflation Surges and the Fed Plays the Blame Game

Real Wages Fall Again as Inflation Surges and the Fed Plays the Blame Game

Ryan McMaken for Mises.org 

According to a new report released Wednesday from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Inflation index increased in March by 8.6 percent, measured year over year (YOY). This is the largest increase in more than forty years. To find a higher rate of CPI inflation, we have to go back to December 1981, when the year-over-year increase was 9.6 percent.

March’s surge in price inflation is also the twelfth month in row during which the increase is well above the Federal Reserve’s arbitrary two-percent inflation target. March’s CPI inflation rate was up from February’s rate of 7.9 percent. The month-over-month increase (seasonally adjusted) was 1.2 percent which was the highest since September of 2005.

The price inflation was driven largely by increases in energy prices (rising 32 percent, YOY) and by “food at home”—i.e., grocery prices—which were up 10 percent. Used cars also continued to show big price increases with a year-over-year jump of 35.3 percent.

Not surprisingly, we find that wages are not keeping up with price inflation. While the CPI rose by 8.6 percent, average hourly earnings only rose by 5.56 percent.

This was a gap of 3 percent between price inflation and earnings, and the largest gap since April of 2021.

Not coincidentally, this price inflation comes after two years of rapid increases in the money supply. M2, for example, has risen by 40 percent since January of 2020. M2 inflation had also risen rapidly during the decade following the 2008 financial crisis as well. Today, $12 trillion of the existing $21 trillion was created by the central bank after 2009. That means 60 percent of today’s entire M2 money supply was created in only the past fourteen years.

Throughout it all, central bankers actively attempted to boost price inflation. As late as February 2020, the Fed’s Lael Brainard was calling for new ways to boost price inflation. And NY Fed President John Williams in 2019 called low inflation “the problem of this era.” Jerome Powell in April of 2019 called low inflation—by which he meant inflation under 2 percent—“one of the major challenges of our time.” In 2017, Janet Yellen said she wished she had managed to produce more price inflation during her time at the Fed.

Given this obsession with higher prices, central bankers were naturally unequipped to deal with reality when inflation began to surge above their arbitrary two-percent standard. Powell and other Fed officials throughout 2021 insisted that inflation would be no problem. And then when levels got more worrisome, this was declared to be “transitory.” When price inflation continued to rise, the Fed then insisted it had a plan. No plan materialized, but the Fed said that it would at some point in 2022 begin doing something to rein in inflation.

Now we’re at the stage of indulging in a blame game. For example, in her interview with Nick Timiraos of The Wall Street Journal Wednesday morning, Brainard repeated a litany of talking points about how inflation was due to covid and to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. When asked what the Fed will do about it, Brainard said it is difficult to guess what to do because the models aren’t perfect. Then she used the common Fed tactic of buying time by saying the Fed will make a decision about what to do in the future. Specifically, she announced the Fed will make a decision about reducing the Fed’s balance sheet in May. And after talking about it in May, the Fed might actually do something to reduce the balance sheet “in June.”

The basic message was: we have things under control, and inflation is really Putin’s fault.

However, attempting to blame rising prices on Russia or Covid or logistical snags misses a key point. If rising prices were due to specific problems in the availability of certain commodities this would not mean general, economy-wide increases in prices as we see now. When price increases do not have their origins in monetary inflation—i.e., “printing money”—we can expect to see declining prices in goods and services as consumers prioritized and also began to look toward goods and services less affected by those shortages and logistical problems. This is because there would be only so much money to go around, so some portions of the economy would experience price deflation. But when enormous amounts of new money has been created, we never see the expected deflation in some sectors. So, as we find in Wednesday’s CPI report, prices are once against rising across the board.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration and its friends in the media have tried to distract from falling real wages by pointing to “job growth” as evidence of an excellent economy.

Yet, what they’re really pointing to is the current tight job market which is itself a symptom of money inflation and price inflation. That is, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to portray job growth as a counter balance to price inflation. Rather, the overheated job market we now see may simply be just evidence of the fact we’re in the later stages of an inflationary cycle. As we’re already seeing, monetary inflation may bring rising wages, but it also brings rising prices for goods and services. And those increases are outpacing the wage increases.

Biden's 2016 Email Makes This Cringe Video Between Hillary and Jill Even Funnier

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

I think it’s safe to say that Hillary Clinton has to be so envious and dripping with jealously that goofy Joe Biden managed to get the position that she has coveted for so much of her life. She still can’t get over losing in 2016 and insists it was stolen from her.

But back in 2016, it turns out that Joe Biden was also thinking about running and he was keeping an eye on what was going on with Hillary Clinton’s run. He shared an anti-Hillary email with several members of his family that made it to Hunter Biden’s laptop, which referenced a Real Clear Politics article.

From NY Post:

In it, University of Chicago political science professor Charles Lipson wrote that Clinton, then the presumptive Democratic nominee, President Barack Obama, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch faced “a treacherous bridge to cross” due to the FBI investigation of Clinton’s private email server.

Lipson said it was “clear that CIA and FBI investigators already fear an administration whitewash and have leaked damaging information to the press.”

He also predicted that if then-FBI Director James Comey recommended prosecution, “he will put [the Department of Justice] and the White House in a very tight box.”

Biden labeled it with one word “Interesting” and sent it to Hunter, Hallie Biden, “Mom” (likely Jill Biden), Finnegan Biden (his granddaughter who was about 16 at the time), his sister Valerie and her husband Jack, as well as aides Steve Ricchetti and Mike Donilon, among others. The purpose seems obvious: What do you think about my possibilities given the mess that Hillary is in? He had previously said months before that he wouldn’t be running because of the death of his son, Beau.

Biden must have been talked out of it since he never acted on it then. But it shows that he was debating about the race — either coming in against her or perhaps potentially thinking about replacing her if she couldn’t continue. That’s likely to raise Hillary’s eyebrows.

That makes this video between Hillary Clinton and Jill Biden even funnier. The ton of cringe in this “Let’s suck up to each other” video is something else. Politics is a business full of fakes. But these have to be two of the fakest people on the planet coming together in one place. Hillary is still horrible at her delivery even now. She’s not even able to sell that she means what she’s saying.

“That’s why I love teaching at community college,” Jill squealed. “And I love hearing you talk about it! It warms my heart so!” Hillary exclaimed. Breaking news: Hillary has a heart and you wouldn’t believe what warms it. Does anyone believe this? Check the chyron — they have the full title for Jill, including the “Dr.” They were speaking at the 2022 Clinton Global Initiative University (CGI U) annual meeting.

Wait until she finds out what Joe was thinking, something tells me she’s not going to “love hearing” about that.

America Is Headed for Class Warfare

America Is Headed for Class Warfare 

Opinion - Joel Kotkin - Newsweek 4/11/22 at 8:00 AM EDT

Nothing has revealed the class divide in the U.S. quite like runaway inflation and skyrocketing gas prices. But in addition to the economic impact the staggering incompetence of the Biden administration is having on the working class, there is a political one; it's undeniably driving working class voters even further from the Democrats and toward the GOP.

But it's not all good news for conservatives. The recent Amazon vote to unionize could be a precursor to something less appealing to the Right: a nascent rebellion among the vast armies of service workers who for decades have inhabited the lower economic rungs.

The truth is, the rising tide of class conflict is problematic for both parties. The Amazon vote challenges the GOP's anti-union stance and its free market dogma. But Democrats, too, face an embarrassing conundrum, since the companies most likely to face continued union drives—Amazon and Starbucks among them—are themselves core funders and media stewards of the Democratic Party.

This is not the discussion either liberal oligarchs or Right-wing activists want. They would rather battle over media hot buttons like climate, race, and gender, than meaningfully address working conditions, wages or rapidly rising rents.

In other words, neither party has developed a program to boost proletarian aspirations.

An Amazon.com Inc. delivery driver carries boxes into a van outside of a distribution facility on February 2, 2021 in Hawthorne, California. An Amazon worker was attacked by a woman's dog after he attempted to break into her home. Patrick T. Fallon/Getty Images

And this despite the fact that the growing class divide could well be the dominant issue of the next decade. Middle- and working-class Americans are widely—and correctly—pessimistic about their economic futures. Even before the civil unrest of recent years and the pandemic, Pew reported that most Americans believed our country was in decline, with a shrinking middle class, increased debt, alienation from leaders and growing polarization.

Almost 70 percent of Americans told pollsters last year that the next generation will be worse off than their parents. And it's not just the masses. Young people across the country are pessimistic as well: Most people 15 to 24 also think life will be worse for them than for their parents.

They aren't wrong. The share of American adults who live in middle-income households has decreased from 61 percent in 1971 to 51 percent in 2019, and the pandemic appears to have accelerated this pattern, hitting low-income workers hardest while the recovery helped them least.

Meanwhile, those at the top are raking it in. CEO compensation reached record levels this year, investment bankers on Wall Street enjoyed record bonuses and the giant tech firms now boast a market capitalization greater than the bloated federal budget.

As millions struggle to fill their tanks and pay their rent, sales of business jets to the rising ranks of billionaires have soared to new heights.

This could prove to be a propitious moment for America's working majority to press their case, not least because the labor market is tighter than ever. U.S. population growth dropped from 20 percent in the eighties to less than 5 percent in the last decade. To make matters worse, an estimated one-third of American working age males are not in the labor force, suffering high rates of incarceration, drug and alcohol abuse and other health issues.

And while the pandemic largely hit lower-wage workers, as the economy opens, labor is ever more in short supply, particularly in the service class. There is a persistent lack of workers amidst massive shortages across the employment front—from nurses and delivery people to farm laborers, retail and hotel workers, truckers and restaurant workers.

Nearly 90 percent of companies surveyed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce blamed a lack of available workers for slowing the economy, more than twice as many as blamed pandemic restrictions. And such labor shortages exert wage pressure. Corporations like Target and Walmart have announced sweeping wage increases, while an estimated 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been left unfilled.

Some traditional Leftists like Bernie Sanders have expressed hope that workers' new leverage could benefit labor unions, particularly at large chains like Starbucks or Amazon. But a full-blown return to unions seems unlikely given that the number of strikes were well below those of previous years and private sector union membership has declined through the pandemic; younger workers' total unionization rates now approach 4 percent of the workforce.

Given the weakness of unions, government policy must step in to promote social mobility. The question is how.

Many working people do not want to be dependent on alms from the oligarch-dominated government, as they increasingly are in California and in proposals like the Green New Deal. As the Pew Research Center has found repeatedly, most Americans don't want a handout but would prefer to make their own living.

Longtime Democratic strategist Ruy Teixeira has pointed out that most working class voters won't rally on issues like transgenderism, critical race theory, defunding the police or draconian climate policies. Anyone who wants their votes will need to speak to their everyday, pressing concerns; imposing cultural issues from on high will only drive voters away.

Democrats need to transcend the obsessions of the academy and media talking heads—overpaid and insulated in their Washington or New York studios—and focus instead on more popular things like traditional social democratic policies aimed at raising wages, expanding healthcare policies or reshoring production from overseas. Gallup found that only a tiny share of Americans sees Biden's core concerns on climate, race or gender as the nation's priority; voters of all races are instead focused on the highest inflation in 40 years, government incompetence, and the aftershocks of the pandemic.

Of course, the Right has its own challenges to speaking to the working class. If green and tech oligarchic pressures weigh on Democrats, the GOP's drive for working class support is threatened both by their residual laissez-faire free market religion and their corporatist roots. Republicanslove to talk up the dangers of woke corporations, but they don't seem to mind if companies may be short-changing their workers.

The GOP also faces a cultural conundrum: The vast majority of Americans may not embrace the extreme agenda of the new style progressives, but extreme Republican positions on issues like abortion or the legitimacy of the 2020 elections are not widely shared by the voting public.

At the end of the day, our political future will not be shaped by the cultural warfare that defined more prosperous times but by pocketbook issues. Wages, the price of buying a house or rent, food costs and the battle for leverage between employers and the fate of smaller businesses against oligopolies will be the defining issues. The class politics that have long dominated Europe are now here with a vengeance, and they will stick around until they are addressed.

Under his headstone in Hampstead Heath, Karl Marx should be smiling.