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?
Edit: Thanks for all your responses. :)
One thing I've heard from Americans is that what everyone else calls 'working class' they call 'middle class'. This is probably due to a hope that one day they will 'make it big', and a reluctance to see themselves as 'below average'.
one thing i've noticed in british political discourse is that "middle class" is still used, but it emphatically does not include the working masses. my sense is that it encapsulates professionals and petty bourgeoisie, as well as having more rigid cultural identity connotations? and then "upper class" is like, multimillionaires and people with titles? someone tells me if i'm off here.
This is correct. 'Middle class' is more or less 'people who need to work for a living, but can work on their terms'. Petty bourgeoisie, professionals, people who see themselves as 'respectable' and 'above the riff-raff'.