Overall, the paper did an excellent job encapsulating, on an abstract level,
the anger felt by the "progressive" political establishment.  If it was
targeted to any other audience, the paper might be discredited as being too
extremist.  

One general concern I had with the paper (perhaps intentional on your part?)
was that it focused overwhelmingly on outlining this "neo-royalist elitism,"
which left very little room for making the case that progressives need
"stories" of their own to compete with the elites.  The latter point
shouldn't be taken for granted -- by articulating the argument for
progressives needing to create "stories," it might better clarify the
difference between progressive politics and standard left-of-center DNC
politics.

I also think you could flesh out the part about elitists deceiving the
public into believing their view.  Some of my concrete comments below
elaborate.  From my personal experience growing up in a small Michigan
factory town, surrounded by endless farms, I saw firsthand how the working
class are deceived into supporting Republican presidents.

Lastly, the paper is a bit scant on examples.  It would make the paper much
longer, but might be worth it if you have the room.

Here's some concrete comments:

p.3 "Elitist Economics" - I take some objection to casting free trade in
such a negative light, although my viewpoint is partially grounded in the
investment world!!  More importantly, elitists can't be equated with free
trade.  I believe the elite co-opt free trade when it serves their ends
(such as with NAFTA), but they equally oppose free trade when it doesn't
serve their ends (e.g., cotton subsidies, steel tariffs).  But this supports
your latter points about the elitists having to use deception to maintain
popular support.

p.3 "Elitist Economics" - Elitists want to tax consumption, not income.  One
the elitists' cute arguments is that a consumption-related tax is more fair.
Never mind that, proportionally speaking, a consumption tax hurts the middle
and working class more!  This supports your latter points about deception
again.

p.4 "Elitist Economics" - The IMF characterization oversimplifies their
complicated relationship with developing countries.  They often promote socially
progressive programs, such as unemployment insurance.  While some of their
actions are questionable, I see the IMF more as a force for both good and
bad (rather than a tool of the elites).

p.5 "Elite Prosperity Story: Reality" - One could make another argument
against concentration of wealth -- the wealthy are lousy consumers.  They
tend to save money at the wrong times (recessions) and purchase less
productive economic goods (one BMW vs. 5 Toyotas).  AGAIN, the elites
deceive working and middle-class folks into thinking the rich are this
necessary investor class!

p. 6 "Elite Prosperity Story: Reality" - I think a step might be missing
here -- the situation you describe about the gradual destruction of the
middle class would result in economic contraction before we get to the "all
hell breaks loose" stage.  The effects of Wal-Mart on small towns
exemplifies this beautifully.  The loss of good paying jobs leads to
localized economic contraction, which then leads to a host of social
problems and self-esteem destroying welfare-dependencies.

Posted February 17, 2004