I think you may have this flipped.

Inflation is, more than anything else, a tax on cash (and last time I checked, your average person didn't have a whole lot of cash on hand). Practically speaking, it helps debtors at the expense of creditors by shrinking the value of liabilities on the books.

The debt hysteria we see isn't because the elite don't care enough about inflation - it's because the costs of it fall more heavily on those who write big checks to political campaigns.

Most of the elites spend their money on buying more influence. They hold debt instead of cash if they hold anything at all outside of whatever they consider to be balanced portfolio.

Except the average person sees the exact same benefit, ideally. It's the same platform William Jennings Bryan campaigned on way back in 1896 - expanding currency helps people who have debt.

Inflation makes the past matter less. It erodes both the wealth of the super-rich and the debt of everyone else (the farmers who had to mortgage their farms in 1896; the normal family now who has a home mortgage as the norm). That's very attractive to a lot of people, not just those managing the national debt.

The basic problem is that you're playing the devil's game when it comes to debt. You might think you are getting the upper hand but the house always wins. The banks always win in this scenario because they get bailed out when they lose and they collect your interest when you "win". It becomes difficult to see how this scenario helps the common man.

Economic growth is the only plan to deal with the debt. If your debt financing costs you 1% of GDP/year but your GDP grows at 3%/year eventually the debt will become insignificant vs. GDP even if it is never paid off.