I think there are a couple of other recent presidential hopefuls who centered their messages much more around reducing the structural power of billionaires and large corporations.
And further, nobody outside of the extreme of the extremists actually wants to eliminate the potential for achieving a "wealthy" status. People will always be able to achieve high levels of success. The argument is that we need to pick a point where amassing so much wealth can start to be deemed anti social and start to taper things off there. There is basically nothing you can buy with ten or eleven digits that you can't buy with nine, except entire corporations and countries and absolutely no individual needs that power or the prospect of that power to be fulfilled in life.
> who centered their messages much more around reducing the structural power of billionaires and large corporations.
The problem is that there is a segment of the American voters who believe that if the current billionaires and large corporations would quit screwing them, they would become the billionaires and owners of the large corporations. As such they are all for screwing over the current crop of billionaires, but don’t want long lasting reduction in the structural power of billionaires.
I've heard it said that Americans all think they are potential millionaires and billionaires that have temporarily hit a down patch. That's why democratic socialism will never fly here except for isolated programs.
Reminds me of an article I keep in my bookmarks from a long time ago, which is probably still true today: 39% of Americans think they are in the top 1% or that they will one day be [1]. They don't want to be mean to the rich because they think they are rich or will soon be among them.
