How President Obama Wins In November

From Tara:

Over at the Daily Beast, Michael Tomasky has a very good piece in which he suggests that President Obama needs to move beyond arguments about fairness (particularly with respect to taxation) and start explaining to voters WHY this is good for our nation's future.  I agree with Tomasky that the President needs to focus more on achieving fairness as a means to an end: growth and prosperity will flow from an economic structure in which the middle class expands.  As Tomasky explains:

To liberals, it’s enough that it will lead to a fairer society. Therefore, it doesn’t even occur to many liberals that the “What will it lead to?” question even needs to be answered. A fairer society is enough. But for many Americans, it’s not enough. A fairer society is fine, they think, if we can afford it. But what these Americans want is a society where there are lots of good jobs. A prosperous society. So what Obama and his speechwriters should be hoping people summarizing his speeches would say is something like: he’s for building up the middle class and making the rich pay more because things are out of whack and unfair, and because doing so will create a more prosperous society. That’s the missing piece.

This is one of my main criticisms of the Occupy movement (inspired by Roger Ebert's excellent piece on the topic).  Arguing against the status quo isn't enough for many people.  I (personally) think it's simply WRONG that some people have more than they need and others don't have enough--and that injustice should be addressed.  But unless we can translate that personal notion into something that matters to more of the electorate, by linking systemic change and a larger middle class to a better future for all of us, we risk leaving many voters to choose the "trickle-down" notion as one that at least appears to provide something for everyone.