Resentment vs Aspiration

Today on Firewall

Laurel and I were in Lisbon last week for WebSummit, meetings on mobile voting and some food/ sightseeing/ wandering around. On the way home, as we were directed to different lines for security, passport control and boarding, it struck me how overt the caste system is on airplanes

And yet, it’s also one that everyone lives by without ever seeing any real, visible protest. People seem to accept that you get what you pay for and they’re also aspirational that one day, they will be the people flying first and skipping the lines. That acceptance seems to conflict with what we just saw in the election, where the working class expressed their deep unhappiness with the progressive elite by voting for Trump in much greater numbers than usual. 

Which got me wondering whether there’s a difference in types of resentment and types of elitism. It seems like Americans writ large don’t really resent wealth or luxury. They admire it. They aspire to it. They try to convey their solidarity with it with whatever brand names they can advertise on their clothes and Instagram feeds. That’s part of why they connect well with Trump. 

At the same time, they clearly resent people who assert moral and intellectual superiority. If you make someone feel stupid or small or bad about themselves, they hate you for it. That has unfortunately, whether out of paternalism or resentment or just the need to feel important, become the modus operandi of too much of the ecosystem surrounding the Democratic party: academia, publishing, punditry, advocacy groups, nonprofits, foundations, institutions and unions (as well as a segment of Democratic elected officials too, though actual pols are usually a little less tone deaf because they do occasionally have to interact with real people).

Bernie Sanders succeeded by focusing his ire solely on the 1 percent, and not towards everyone who didn’t pass a left wing purity test. He was able to build a broad coalition in 2016 by using that approach. And he’s made that case since this year’s election too. But the party and the movement quickly expanded the enemy to both everyone wealthier than them and to everyone different from them. That’s what backfired and  helped elect Trump in 2016 and again in 2024. 

If I were the king of the Democrats, I would do everything possible to get the elites in and around my party to stop making everything about race and gender and sexuality, and instead focus on opportunity, on policies that can help people earn more money, save money, and get ahead. Make it about how you help working people succeed, not about the politics of grievance, not about punishing others. People want better lives, not moral dichotomies. 

Show them how you get there. It can’t just be a rehash of traditional Democratic policies. Some ideas like universal health care and the child care tax credit make a lot of sense. But so does school choice. So does Universal Basic Income and then dismantling parts of government that are ineffective and would no longer be needed. So does no longer allowing unions and environmentalists and community groups to block affordable housing (same for permitting nuclear and renewable energy facilities). So does both massively expanded legal immigration combined with truly tight border security. So does a much higher federal minimum wage. So does fighting crime, funding the police and keeping cities and neighborhoods safe. Some of these ideas are bedrocks of Democratic orthodoxy. But if none of the ideas are an anathema to the far left, then the vision isn’t going to be compelling to anyone but them either. 

If I were the Democrats, I would try very hard to change who represents me publicly —  yes on MSNBC and CNN, but also in earned and social media broadly (why does USA Today need to be a voice of moral superiority?), in running major institutions, nonprofits, foundations, universities, and think tanks. This means a total reset of the people claiming to represent Democrats. If you can’t replace them, disown them. Make it clear they do not speak for Democrats. Maybe they flee and start their own party. More likely, they just adapt to the new norms. You just have to set them. 

While general unhappiness (thank you, social media) and strong anti-incumbency sentiment meant the Democratic nominee was probably going to lose this election no matter what, the Democrats are also only hurting themselves by alienating so many voters just to make a vocal and entitled subset feel especially affirmed and validated. Harris didn’t cause the problem — but her talking points about the middle class also weren’t going to make up for years of her party and its broader ecosystem relentlessly making voters feel bad about themselves. Combine that with inflation, illegal immigration and anger towards Biden’s selfishness, and Harris, in retrospect, never stood a chance. 

Until that approach changes, Democrats probably can’t win broadly or consistently. But if they can change their tune from hectoring to helping — then the hypocrisy and sermonizing and religious zealotry of the other side becomes a lot more visible, a lot more salient and a lot more alienating. 

Ultimately, Democrats have to choose: do you want to win elections and be able to actually pass and administer policies that help people or do you want to feel morally superior? It turns out, the two are mutually exclusive.