“Anger at the elites.” Well, Trump is setting up an oligarchy. Let’s see how that goes toward diminishing anger. And speaking of which - where is that side of the conversation - to try to find ways to diminish the anger - all I see is it being stoked.
I was thinking something similar. If "Anger at the elites" is indeed a real source of disillusionment and resentment in America. How do we explain the seeming acceptance (so far) by the public, that the next administration will be, if not operated by, HEAVILY influenced by a select few billionaires in ways to ensure they continue to "win" and others do not. Trump is forming a Broligarchy. Where is the outrage?
And I agree with your premise - I don't think it really is anger at the elites. I mean, isn't trump one, even though he has somehow managed to convince "the masses" that he is one of them, while living the very definition of elite - homes are country clubs, a private plane, etc? I think he has convinced a lot of people to be angry at their circumstances and provided a permission structure to blame anyone who is different from them - be it because of gender, color, land of origin, sexual orientation or identity. In other words, women, brown/black people, immigrants, gays and trans -- it's all THEIR fault. Trump's campaign was about targeting them.
Very good points. And "the media" is to blame as well, for spreading false narratives > false as defined by the Broligarchy. The danger, of course, is that the anger and blame of others turns into actual violence - aka United Health CEO.
Anger is real. Anger also produces nothing of value, and is the worst emotion possible for decision making. Rahm should be banished by the party, not run it.
Yes, but ignoring it, and what is causing the anger doesn't produce anything either. I think anger is the "elephant in the middle of the room" that needs to be talked about.
In the 1930s, another period of economic anxiety, John Dillinger, Al Capone, Bonnie & Clyde et al. were celebrated in the populist zeitgeist as antiheroes raging against big banks and elitist institutions in general. So today's current populist rage and support for antiheroes isn't new; but during the Depression people had true hardship to contend with as government safety nets didn't exist, healthcare was nonexistent for the poor, and the economic outlook was grim for all.
However today, like spoiled children, the populist ragers wish to blow up the current economic/political system stemming from a world view that is based on alternate realities created by conspiracy theories and false information. They are happy to destroy an economic system that, while admittedly imperfect, has since WWII brought untold wealth and opportunity to the vast majority.
I read Rahm's editorial and I think he gets it half right. I agree Democrats focus on identity was a big factor.
Where I disagree is the focus on rage. If you look at the Emerson poll Democrats are almost twice as likely as GOP to find the CEO killer's actions acceptable:
"22% of Democrats find them acceptable, while 59% find them unacceptable, this compares to 12% of Republicans and 16% of independents "
So the rage, to the extent it exists, seems to be more on the left and Democrats capture that element pretty well already. Really that fits with the traditional Warren/Sanders anti-corporate sentiments. The main focus of Democratic rage of course is Trump and that comes through daily right here in the comments.
I watched Mark Halperin's 2WAY quite a bit prior to the election (I'd love to see Chris Cillizza on that by the way) and listened to many minorities that were pro-Trump, or at least questioning Harris. They were not enraged, on the contrary they were calm and thoughtful. Saying Trump voters were motivated by rage is really another way for Democrats to say Trump voters are unreasonable or unhinged.
The entire debate about this unacceptable murder is sad. But I'm not all that surprised by younger people have a lower percentage of unacceptable. Youth creates less nuance in thought and they struggle with the experience of dealing with complex emotions. They aren't dumb and they aren't wrong, they are just young and tend to see things more black/white.
1. Right or wrong (and I do think it's wrong), I'm not surprised that young adults who came of age at a time when they watched Republicans offer them nothing but thoughts and prayers as school shootings and mass shootings, in general, rose significantly find themselves not caring much when someone is gunned down in the streets the way the United Healthcare CEO was.
2. "Sure, his unfiltered words were crude — and often derogatory — but they reflected people’s feelings of abandonment."
I will continue to ask this genuinely, and I know folks will wave me away as just trying to deflect because while I think Rahm is right in a lot of that op-ed, I'm wondering if any of this even really matters. I've commented this before but by the end of the campaign, Trump was referring to those of us on the left as vermin and scum. Nobody cared. Nobody said this is unacceptable. And the country voted for Trump anyway. So yeah, people are angry. I'm just wondering why decent people should care either way any longer. Trump promised to bring misery to millions of people, and millions decided that he was their guy. Why should I give a shit what happens to this country at this point?
To your second point i heard somebody say this and I think it's largely true:
"The left takes Trump literally but not seriously, while the right takes him seriously but not literally".
The right accepts a lot of what Trump says as part of his stream of consciousness speech pattern and hyperbole. I've also heard it said half the time Trump is doing a comedy routine. The right looks at him in that context while the left takes his words literally.
And the policies of the Republicans since even before Ronald Reagan, the “trickle down economics” BS, the tax codes changes benefitting corporations, etc, have all contributed towards the continuously widening, now hideous-sized gap between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ and YET, the voters vote for those same politicians with those same policies because the messenger is more effective? Because he was able to “other” and blame better than the Democrats?
Where is the critical thinking? The sad part is that the whole world is affected but it has no say on the dangerous path these ‘enraged’ voters are pursuing.
Bernie Sanders is angry too. But he moves from anger to solutions. We need to channel that justifiable anger into a social democratic movement. And I want to point out that I am under no illusions. World politics is trending towards authoritarianism. But fury against the rich and powerful can lead to one at a time victories.
Emanuel may not be the next DNC chairman but he definitely gets what’s going on out here. The death of civility is only a symptom, not a cause of our problems.
Most of the people who support Trump blindly trust him because he comes across as anti-establishment. What they don't get is that he is pro- 100% unfettered capitalism -- which is exactly what led to their anti-establishment views to begin with.
Very astute post, Chris. I think you nailed the current worldwide sentiment.
I had one impression as I was reading Rahm today: he is nominee material. As in the 2028 presidential nominee on the Democrat side. I don’t agree with a lot of his criticism mostly because this election was won by the better candidate, not on issues. And it pains me to write that. Trump has been marketing himself and his ‘cause de jour’ for 45 years in the NYC media market or nationally. We don’t have anyone on our side up to his level of expertise. (Maybe Oprah, but not really). He is a constant brander and news cycle dominator. In one week he went from Notre Dame to the cover of TIME to the NYSE to the Army Navy game to the MAL press conference. On our side we have Pelosi knifing AOC from her hospital room.
Anyway, Rahm, Mitch Landrieu, Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsom, Buttigieg, etc, all need to speak loudly and often.
It’s disturbing that so many young people support Luigi Mangione. But there have always been Americans who root for the outlaw going back to Jesse James.
This company is a good villain too. It’s not just its customers they hurt by coverage denial, they’ve apparently built their business model on ripping off Medicare too.
One-sided 'discussion' here. Democrat anger is focused at Trump, while R anger is at Elites, Others, ... More dispersed. No D anger at Biden for saying aloud that 'Trump has a valid point - Politically motivated prosecutions can happen.' In my Administration.
US politics has become Emotional. The politicians _want_ us to vote based on Emotion, not Reason. A good political speech 'stirs emotions', but is not described as 'a fair and thorough analysis of the issue'
If people only read! (Chris C will not read this) Peter Turchen has modelled social unrest and violence (politics) for the Han Dynasty in China, the Russian Revolution, the US Civil War, and other situations. His model largely attributes unrest to Elite overpopulation, where more are born who think they deserve Elite status than there are Elite positions.
Maybe the problem cuts across the Parties. A congress-person represents about 1 million people now. In 1792, it was closer to 20,000. Big power, big lobbying budgets. Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely
Spot on as usual Mr. C! Rahm is correct, Dems got beat because we're tone deaf and in a bubble. Trump, disgusting as he is, tapped into the dark side of America and leveraged it by saying "I am one of you" when he really isn't.
Chris, can you define “elite”? Is it the well educated, college graduate? Or a graduate of a prestigious college? Someone who teaches at a college? Or someone who has wealth (what amount)? Or someone who has power (social, political, military, monetary, business, sports, entertainment, media, academia)? Or someone who is just older than the cutoff age of the accuser? Seems to me depending on the day, the story or the outrage, it could be just about anybody other than a member of the GOP or a MAGA member even when they fit the above options, or anybody who is defined other than a elite (circular argument?). I’m being serious, and when you put that together for me, further define a woke elitist, makes my brain explode….
“Anger at the elites.” Well, Trump is setting up an oligarchy. Let’s see how that goes toward diminishing anger. And speaking of which - where is that side of the conversation - to try to find ways to diminish the anger - all I see is it being stoked.
I was thinking something similar. If "Anger at the elites" is indeed a real source of disillusionment and resentment in America. How do we explain the seeming acceptance (so far) by the public, that the next administration will be, if not operated by, HEAVILY influenced by a select few billionaires in ways to ensure they continue to "win" and others do not. Trump is forming a Broligarchy. Where is the outrage?
And I agree with your premise - I don't think it really is anger at the elites. I mean, isn't trump one, even though he has somehow managed to convince "the masses" that he is one of them, while living the very definition of elite - homes are country clubs, a private plane, etc? I think he has convinced a lot of people to be angry at their circumstances and provided a permission structure to blame anyone who is different from them - be it because of gender, color, land of origin, sexual orientation or identity. In other words, women, brown/black people, immigrants, gays and trans -- it's all THEIR fault. Trump's campaign was about targeting them.
Very good points. And "the media" is to blame as well, for spreading false narratives > false as defined by the Broligarchy. The danger, of course, is that the anger and blame of others turns into actual violence - aka United Health CEO.
yep yep. Makes me very worried about 2025.
Anger is real. Anger also produces nothing of value, and is the worst emotion possible for decision making. Rahm should be banished by the party, not run it.
Yes, but ignoring it, and what is causing the anger doesn't produce anything either. I think anger is the "elephant in the middle of the room" that needs to be talked about.
Fine, people can choose to be angry. Then they need to cool off and put their thinking caps on. Perpetual anger wastes energy and solves nothing.
In the 1930s, another period of economic anxiety, John Dillinger, Al Capone, Bonnie & Clyde et al. were celebrated in the populist zeitgeist as antiheroes raging against big banks and elitist institutions in general. So today's current populist rage and support for antiheroes isn't new; but during the Depression people had true hardship to contend with as government safety nets didn't exist, healthcare was nonexistent for the poor, and the economic outlook was grim for all.
However today, like spoiled children, the populist ragers wish to blow up the current economic/political system stemming from a world view that is based on alternate realities created by conspiracy theories and false information. They are happy to destroy an economic system that, while admittedly imperfect, has since WWII brought untold wealth and opportunity to the vast majority.
I read Rahm's editorial and I think he gets it half right. I agree Democrats focus on identity was a big factor.
Where I disagree is the focus on rage. If you look at the Emerson poll Democrats are almost twice as likely as GOP to find the CEO killer's actions acceptable:
"22% of Democrats find them acceptable, while 59% find them unacceptable, this compares to 12% of Republicans and 16% of independents "
So the rage, to the extent it exists, seems to be more on the left and Democrats capture that element pretty well already. Really that fits with the traditional Warren/Sanders anti-corporate sentiments. The main focus of Democratic rage of course is Trump and that comes through daily right here in the comments.
I watched Mark Halperin's 2WAY quite a bit prior to the election (I'd love to see Chris Cillizza on that by the way) and listened to many minorities that were pro-Trump, or at least questioning Harris. They were not enraged, on the contrary they were calm and thoughtful. Saying Trump voters were motivated by rage is really another way for Democrats to say Trump voters are unreasonable or unhinged.
The entire debate about this unacceptable murder is sad. But I'm not all that surprised by younger people have a lower percentage of unacceptable. Youth creates less nuance in thought and they struggle with the experience of dealing with complex emotions. They aren't dumb and they aren't wrong, they are just young and tend to see things more black/white.
Two thoughts
1. Right or wrong (and I do think it's wrong), I'm not surprised that young adults who came of age at a time when they watched Republicans offer them nothing but thoughts and prayers as school shootings and mass shootings, in general, rose significantly find themselves not caring much when someone is gunned down in the streets the way the United Healthcare CEO was.
2. "Sure, his unfiltered words were crude — and often derogatory — but they reflected people’s feelings of abandonment."
I will continue to ask this genuinely, and I know folks will wave me away as just trying to deflect because while I think Rahm is right in a lot of that op-ed, I'm wondering if any of this even really matters. I've commented this before but by the end of the campaign, Trump was referring to those of us on the left as vermin and scum. Nobody cared. Nobody said this is unacceptable. And the country voted for Trump anyway. So yeah, people are angry. I'm just wondering why decent people should care either way any longer. Trump promised to bring misery to millions of people, and millions decided that he was their guy. Why should I give a shit what happens to this country at this point?
To your second point i heard somebody say this and I think it's largely true:
"The left takes Trump literally but not seriously, while the right takes him seriously but not literally".
The right accepts a lot of what Trump says as part of his stream of consciousness speech pattern and hyperbole. I've also heard it said half the time Trump is doing a comedy routine. The right looks at him in that context while the left takes his words literally.
And the policies of the Republicans since even before Ronald Reagan, the “trickle down economics” BS, the tax codes changes benefitting corporations, etc, have all contributed towards the continuously widening, now hideous-sized gap between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ and YET, the voters vote for those same politicians with those same policies because the messenger is more effective? Because he was able to “other” and blame better than the Democrats?
Where is the critical thinking? The sad part is that the whole world is affected but it has no say on the dangerous path these ‘enraged’ voters are pursuing.
Bernie Sanders is angry too. But he moves from anger to solutions. We need to channel that justifiable anger into a social democratic movement. And I want to point out that I am under no illusions. World politics is trending towards authoritarianism. But fury against the rich and powerful can lead to one at a time victories.
What percentage of 18-29 year olds are ok with their rich guys...Musk or Ramaswamy...getting shot? Geez. Come on, youth of America. Be better.
Emanuel may not be the next DNC chairman but he definitely gets what’s going on out here. The death of civility is only a symptom, not a cause of our problems.
It's simple, really...
Most of the people who support Trump blindly trust him because he comes across as anti-establishment. What they don't get is that he is pro- 100% unfettered capitalism -- which is exactly what led to their anti-establishment views to begin with.
Very astute post, Chris. I think you nailed the current worldwide sentiment.
I had one impression as I was reading Rahm today: he is nominee material. As in the 2028 presidential nominee on the Democrat side. I don’t agree with a lot of his criticism mostly because this election was won by the better candidate, not on issues. And it pains me to write that. Trump has been marketing himself and his ‘cause de jour’ for 45 years in the NYC media market or nationally. We don’t have anyone on our side up to his level of expertise. (Maybe Oprah, but not really). He is a constant brander and news cycle dominator. In one week he went from Notre Dame to the cover of TIME to the NYSE to the Army Navy game to the MAL press conference. On our side we have Pelosi knifing AOC from her hospital room.
Anyway, Rahm, Mitch Landrieu, Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsom, Buttigieg, etc, all need to speak loudly and often.
It’s disturbing that so many young people support Luigi Mangione. But there have always been Americans who root for the outlaw going back to Jesse James.
This company is a good villain too. It’s not just its customers they hurt by coverage denial, they’ve apparently built their business model on ripping off Medicare too.
One hopes this will cause Congress to act.
One-sided 'discussion' here. Democrat anger is focused at Trump, while R anger is at Elites, Others, ... More dispersed. No D anger at Biden for saying aloud that 'Trump has a valid point - Politically motivated prosecutions can happen.' In my Administration.
US politics has become Emotional. The politicians _want_ us to vote based on Emotion, not Reason. A good political speech 'stirs emotions', but is not described as 'a fair and thorough analysis of the issue'
If people only read! (Chris C will not read this) Peter Turchen has modelled social unrest and violence (politics) for the Han Dynasty in China, the Russian Revolution, the US Civil War, and other situations. His model largely attributes unrest to Elite overpopulation, where more are born who think they deserve Elite status than there are Elite positions.
Maybe the problem cuts across the Parties. A congress-person represents about 1 million people now. In 1792, it was closer to 20,000. Big power, big lobbying budgets. Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely
Spot on as usual Mr. C! Rahm is correct, Dems got beat because we're tone deaf and in a bubble. Trump, disgusting as he is, tapped into the dark side of America and leveraged it by saying "I am one of you" when he really isn't.
Chris, can you define “elite”? Is it the well educated, college graduate? Or a graduate of a prestigious college? Someone who teaches at a college? Or someone who has wealth (what amount)? Or someone who has power (social, political, military, monetary, business, sports, entertainment, media, academia)? Or someone who is just older than the cutoff age of the accuser? Seems to me depending on the day, the story or the outrage, it could be just about anybody other than a member of the GOP or a MAGA member even when they fit the above options, or anybody who is defined other than a elite (circular argument?). I’m being serious, and when you put that together for me, further define a woke elitist, makes my brain explode….