Either side can be responsible. Communication is a mutual process, and if your goal is to communicate, you have to do what you can do---if you're writing, try

Either side can be responsible. Communication is a mutual process, and if your goal is to communicate, you have to do what you can do---if you're writing, try various tactics to find which one can penetrate the reader's precognition. The reader, otoh, try various way to interpret what's written to make sense. If communication fails, then it's a loss for both side. You can blame another side but that doesn't make things better... It's interesting that pg has already written how difficult a nonconventional idea to be heard. This can be another instance. It might take 10 more essays. Not the direct rebuttal like this, but tackling the issue from different angle and/or different abstraction level; e.g. ok, how could we attack wealth influencing politics?