NYTimes -- The Triumph of Hope Over Self-Interest

Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves?

People vote their aspirations.

The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday.

Income resentment is not a strong emotion in much of America.

Many Americans admire the rich.

Americans resent social inequality more than income inequality.

They [Democrats] haven't learned what Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt and even Bill Clinton knew: that you can run against rich people, but only those who have betrayed the ideal of fair competition. You have to be more hopeful and growth-oriented than your opponent, and you cannot imply that we are a nation tragically and permanently divided by income. In the gospel of America, there are no permanent conflicts.

I don't completely agree with this, mainly because the very conservative David Brooks implies that pointing out that the rich should pay their fair share of taxes is motivated by resentment. You can object to a return of the gilded age of income distribution and away from the post-WW2 sense of community without being motivated by resentment.