Sorry for this question. I am still learning.
Something that has always bothered me is how much u.s. politicians obsess over helping the middle class. Seems like the two major parties talk about it a lot. Why do they endlessly talk about helping the middle class, but never seem to acknowledge or focus on helping the (lower?) or poverty or proletariat class?
To me it sounds like the middle class by definition should be not be as in need as other classes that don't have as much? What's the purpose of this?
the bourgeoisie (bourg=city/market town, compare burg/berg) were the middle class in the feudal system, not serfs or peasants, not clergy or lords, they were the craftspeople and merchants that lived in cities.
this same middle class is the ruling class of bourgeois nations like the united states. US politicians are most enthusiastic about helping themselves. and this is laundered to portions of the working class who imagine themselves part of that class, through the characteristics of the 'middle class': unlike nobility which comes with a title, the bourgeoisie do not have a prescribed job title or an authority that they derive legitimacy from. they can be moneychangers, rentiers, industrialists, independent craftspeople (petit-bourgeoisie), successful professionals that parlay accumulated wealth into property, etc---it's fucking complicated---and it is unstable. if and when the wealth and property is stripped of an individual or family, they no longer belong to the class. So it is very easy for people experiencing more comfort than the poorest parts of society to imagine themselves as part of such an encompassing and flexible class. Own a house (something a literal peasant could, then renting the fields from the lord)? middle class. Own penny stocks? middle class. Literally just think you're wealthier than your poorest neighbor? middle class.