a.k.a The Politics of Need...

No, it's the politics of pragmatism and Democracy. If the majority is dissatisfied with the existing system, they will change it. At which point it doesn't matter whether you or anybody else thought the system was good. If you want to keep it you need to convince the majority of its merits or at least keep them comfortable enough that they can't be bothered organizing against you.

This country has bent over backwards since the Great Depression to achieve a more egalitarian-like structure between the so-called "haves" and "have-nots".....and despite the ever-increasing welfare state, despite every new program to seize earnings from those who are more able. we still see a huge role reversal regarding the "hawks" and "doves" - the "hawks" continue to coo apologetically, while the doves continue to scream their heads off for more.

Nice word picture, but look at the concept of "Wealth Inequality." it was fairly static in the US in the period you describe between 1929 and the 1970s when it was lower than places like Britain or Sweden, but since then it has risen sharply. Today, 20% of the US population holds over 80% of the wealth. My question is: why do you expect the other 80% to go along with that, bearing in mind that inequality was lower during the great periods of industrialization and invention that propelled the US to its current position of supremacy. Presumably many of those in the 20% consider the situation fair but that's not what matters at voting time or if the 80% decides to take more direct action. This is the sum total of the point I'm raising. Surely you can see it from their POV?