(cobbled together partly from responses to JtC)
If you have to ask whether you're in the 1% or the 99%, you're probably in the 99%. Contrary to popular belief (and left-wing wishful thinking), that designation doesn't come from your advocating for one policy or another, nor from belonging to any particular political philosophy. It comes from the fact that you don't have the power to affect either the policy decisions that get made or the debates that get airtime. You can root for one political "team" or another, just like when people watch the NFL. Some NFL teams have considerably more resources than others and amount to being the League's special favorites. That doesn't mean that any of the teams are owned by anyone outside the 1%. It doesn't mean that any of the teams are serving the interests of the 99%. Neither does it mean that any of the fans have any control over anything except which side they cheer for.
The 99% has been divided into camps: "left" and right, Democratic and Republican, pro-vax and anti-vax. Neither side is "the 1%." It just suits the 1% to create those sides. It's easy to do when you have a 24/7 media cartel willing to do your bidding, to say nothing of the country's politicians (also willing to do your bidding).
One side has the function of standing in for, and defending the interests of, the 1%. The other functions as a target for hatred and blame. Sometimes the target of that hatred and blame is innocent of the charges laid at its feet--as when left-wingers and Democrats were accused of being terrorist sympathizers under Bush. (I think it likely that extremely few people in the United States were on the side of Osama bin Laden after his people flew planes into buildings, killing thousands of us.) Sometimes the target is guilty, at least in part. But actual innocence or guilt has little to do with the way in which these narratives are deployed.
It suits the aims of the 1% to give one side a great deal of resources and the other just enough resources to make sure it continues to be a threat. The side openly defending the wishes of the elites gets the most resources, of course. The other side has two functions. First, as I said above, it represents a threat: something to hate, fear, and blame. This enables the elites to divide the populace and to ask for continually higher levels of "security" spending and an ever-more authoritarian and expansive police state. Secondly, it represents the hope of resistance. It dangles the possibility that there will be a successful shift of power away from the current oligarchy, and a whole set of policy changes that the people long for as a man in the desert longs for water.
I am sad to say that I fell for this strategy during the Bush years. I wish I had back all the heartbeats I invested in the Democratic party (and all the money). Back then, the left and the Democrats were the despised brand, the scapegoats. But they also represented the possibility of political transformation, the dethroning of the current oligarchy, and that set of policy changes so needed by the American people. Hope and Change.
Under Bushco, the right-wing brand established with Reagan burned out. Or the American people burned out on it. The elites knew it was going to take considerable work to rebuild that brand's credibility. So the 1% flipped American politics on its head, using the so-called "left" as the dominant faction that works for and defends the priorities of the rich, while keeping the "populist right" around to be a convenient target for hatred and blame.
What's horrifying is how easily the powers-that-be took control of what remained of leftism in this country. It's not just that they controlled the Democratic party (that was kind of done and dusted by the early 90s). They have also taken control of left-wing discourse. Of course, from one point of view, that is the brass ring the elites always wanted to grab: creating a self-justifying political discourse that advocates for their interests and has no discernible outside. But they also had no choice but to strip left-wing discourse of almost all of its ideas and precepts. Most of those ideas cannot be used to justify the kind of oligarchy the elites are perpetrating, and they had to be dumped in order for the elites to be able to use the left as a tool.
So they stripped the left wing of every precept except its opposition to bigotry. Then they changed what it means to oppose bigotry. Before 2010, you could not oppose bigotry and endorse the current economic system, or the current financial system, or the current prison system, or the current legal system. Now, opposing bigotry merely means scrutinizing the words of carefully selected operational targets, or, in other words, hiring some people of color, LGBTQ people, and heterosexual white women to proclaim that critics of the elites are bigots.
The vax/anti vax divide is the most recent iteration of this political mechanism--and a really good one, too. It activates people's survival instinct, which historically leads to people demanding authoritarianism and blood. I, personally, am in cautious support of vaccination, in the sense that I believe it's the best dice roll I'm likely to get. This decision comes from my particular circumstances, as the relation of a person taking immunosuppressant drugs. That being said, I understand (of course!) why people feel less than trusting of both the pharmaceutical companies and the government. And as far as I'm concerned, C99 has more than enough room for all.