Epstein Files | Patel: Trust us

[theel4life]

Back to Trump being in the Epstein files.

 

[finesse]

I somehow missed this reply in real time, but it deserves a response.

I don’t reject expertise in the way some populists on the right do. I agree that professional standards, peer review, and institutional knowledge are crucial to a functioning society. But I think you’re misunderstanding where my skepticism is coming from.

I’m not talking about throwing out expertise. I’m talking about the fact that in recent decades, many of the people and institutions who claimed the mantle of expertise, particularly in politics, finance, foreign policy, and media, failed in massive, visible ways. The Iraq War, the 2008 financial crisis, the opioid epidemic, the Covid response, the collapse of local journalism, and the bipartisan economic consensus that hollowed out working-class communities were not engineered by the MAGA right. They were often driven, rationalized, or rubber-stamped by credentialed experts in high places.

That doesn’t mean we abandon all expertise. Rather, it means we need to reckon honestly with why public trust has eroded and why institutions that should be defending democracy and the common good have so often been captured by elite interests.

People aren’t stupid. They’ve watched “the experts” bail out Wall Street while their towns die, tell them globalization will be a net positive while their jobs are offshored, and treat their skepticism as ignorance rather than a rational response to betrayal.

This is why I focus more on the failures of Democrats and liberal institutions. It’s not because I think they’re as bad as Republicans. It’s because in communities like this, everyone already knows the GOP is a wrecking ball. My concern is how liberal leadership has often failed to meet the moment, and how that failure has opened the door to reactionary politics.

As for pragmatism and electability: I want to win too. But I think our chances improve when we offer people something clear, material, and rooted in dignity, not when we keep chasing the political center or trying to guilt people into voting for a status quo they feel has failed them. The reason figures like Bernie resonated was because they spoke directly to people’s material needs without talking down to them. That’s the path forward, not “perfect versus good,” but credible versus hollow.

You’ve lived through real change. That matters. But I think the risk now is that without a reckoning and a bolder vision, we’ll keep losing ground to a right-wing movement that has no such hesitation.

Several of the problems I see is that you are likely your (pl) view of soft "experts" like politicians, economists, media pundits and such reject statisticians, scientists, researchers and the sort of hard expert people who could have saved us from some of this ignorant voting patterns. There really are some things that can be nailed down as the best possible explanation possible with our knowledge. Those things aren't really a matter of public opinion and when you reject those because these other so called experts let us down, everybody loses.

Your focus on the Democrats may feel to you like being a gadfly but feels more like a stab in the back to a lot of us. Why do you undermine the support of the one group that has done anything at all to actually accomplish any of your agenda? Why not win from within? You don't really have a power base now. Help win ,collect favors, convert the party by example and have a power base. Don't discount that the insipid support by the left or the ability by the right to both pin and demonize the ideas of the left on the Dems has had on the rise of those reactionary politics, either.

I have yet to see where it's harder to win the center than inspire the left. The left just doesn't have that good of a track record. And the bottom line is that if you don't have power, you can't change anything.

 

[Paine]

Several of the problems I see is that you are likely your (pl) view of soft "experts" like politicians, economists, media pundits and such reject statisticians, scientists, researchers and the sort of hard expert people who could have saved us from some of this ignorant voting patterns. There really are some things that can be nailed down as the best possible explanation possible with our knowledge. Those things aren't really a matter of public opinion and when you reject those because these other so called experts let us down, everybody loses.

Your focus on the Democrats may feel to you like being a gadfly but feels more like a stab in the back to a lot of us. Why do you undermine the support of the one group that has done anything at all to actually accomplish any of your agenda? Why not win from within? You don't really have a power base now. Help win ,collect favors, convert the party by example and have a power base. Don't discount that the insipid support by the left or the ability by the right to both pin and demonize the ideas of the left on the Dems has had on the rise of those reactionary politics, either.

I have yet to see where it's harder to win the center than inspire the left. The left just doesn't have that good of a track record. And the bottom line is that if you don't have power, you can't change anything.

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply, and I don’t take the concerns lightly.

I understand why some of my posts might come across as overly critical of Democrats or as though I’m taking shots at the only party currently doing anything to protect democratic norms or pass meaningful legislation. But I want to clarify where I’m coming from.

I’m not interested in tearing down expertise in general. I deeply respect the work of scientists, researchers, public health professionals, and others who operate with rigor and good faith. But when it comes to the broader class of “soft” experts of media elites, political consultants, and even some academics, I think it’s fair to point out the ways many of them failed in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis, the Iraq War, COVID messaging, and more.

That doesn’t mean throwing out all expertise. It means developing better judgment about which experts to trust and how to hold them accountable, especially when they operate through institutions that have lost public legitimacy.

When it comes to the Democratic Party, my goal isn’t to demobilize or demoralize. It’s to make it stronger, more effective, and more credible in the eyes of people who have tuned out or turned right. That includes millions of working-class people who feel abandoned or unheard.

I critique Democratic leadership not because I see them as the enemy, but because I want them to win on a message that resonates more deeply across class and region. I want a party that leads with clarity, doesn’t cede populism to the right, and understands that technocratic management alone doesn’t inspire loyalty.

I don’t reject working within the party. I think the “both sides are equal” position is often lazy and unhelpful. But I also think refusing to acknowledge where Democrats have made real political mistakes, on messaging, on economic vision, on their approach to media, only makes the party more brittle. My critiques are aimed at building something more durable and rooted.

You’re right that power matters. But the long-term health of a political coalition also depends on how it earns and sustains that power, not just by being the lesser evil, but by offering people a vision they can believe in and fight for.

That’s the role I see for myself in these conversations. Not to throw stones from the sidelines, but to help clarify why so many Americans have become disillusioned and start to think about how we might begin to win them back.

 

[superrific]

That’s a fair analogy in some ways.

Capital does flow like water toward the path of least resistance, but the key is that the “terrain” it flows through isn’t natural; it’s shaped by political choices.

Governments build the channels. They cut away labor protections, weaken environmental standards, and offer tax incentives not because of gravity, but because of pressure from international institutions, corporate lobbying, and a prevailing economic orthodoxy.

So yes, capital follows the path of least resistance, but it’s a path engineered to serve its interests. The question becomes: who has the power to redirect that flow?

To extend the analogy, though, gravity is non-negotiable. You can't make water flow up. You can't redirect capital flow just where you want.

I'd also extend the analogy with a canal: while the surface of the canal so to speak is political, the existence of the canal is not,.

 

[superrific]

I’m noticing that my last point here about the limits of personality-based explanations for political behavior hasn’t been responded to. I think that silence is meaningful. When we frame political divisions primarily as fixed psychological traits, it leads to a dead end in terms of building inclusive, hopeful movements.

It’s worth reflecting on what that means for anyone interested in lasting social and political change. If a large share of people are seen as inherently authoritarian or “bad,” then organizing becomes less about solidarity and more about exclusion or defeatism. That kind of framing risks alienating the very people whose support we need to create real progress.

This isn’t just a theoretical debate; it shapes how we build coalitions, craft messages, and imagine the future. I believe in a politics rooted in human potential, material conditions, and shared struggle. If we lose that, we lose everything.

I welcome others who want to think through how we can maintain that hopeful, grounded approach to change.

If you're talking about my silence, what it means is that I haven't looked at the board for 15 hours.

1. I don't know what you mean by the "limits" of personality-based explanations. It seems to me that if personality-based explanations were true, then you'd be making a big mistake focusing on material conditions because you won't reach anyone. Likewise, if personality isn't much of a factor, then focusing on it would make little sense. I

That's to say that this is an empirical question. What we should do depends very much on how the world is, and how the world is doesn't care about solidarity or shared struggle.

2. For instance: the last election was incoherent, right? A bunch of people who are supposedly mega-concerned about inflation, voting for the guy who was promising to increase inflation. And now that he's wrecking the economy, and people are losing their businesses, they are still reluctant to quit their Trump support. That suggests to me that material conditions weren't actually the driving force. What they wanted was a scapegoat. Hitler had the Jews, Trump has the invading Mexicans.

3. This empirical approach is difficult, to say the least, for a number of reasons that probably require little explanation. Have you seen the movie Full Metal Jacket. I've watched it several times. The first time, I was with some friends and we all agreed that if they were ever thinking about serving in the marines, no longer. Full Metal Jacket seems, to me, a pretty strong argument against military. And yet, the reality was that it dramatically improved recruiting when it came out, and recruiters credited it with a spike in enlistments. I'm not using this story to suggest anything about the issue of psychology or materiality; simply to say that sometimes it can be hard to understand a person's motivations either way.

4. You are aware of the book What's the Matter with Kansas, I'm sure. I haven't read it, and I'm not all that interested in the details of that particular debate. But that literature does marshal a lot of evidence of people voting against their economic interests, repeatedly and consistently. And it's not all that easy to explain, is it, in material terms. It's not hard to explain with personality. That doesn't mean the personality approach is 100% correct (I'm confident that authoritarian personalities are definitely a factor in creating Trump; how much of a factor is what's open for debate), but it is something the materialist has to reckon with.

That's why I think throwing out the psychology explanation in toto is not helpful. I should add that the Dems have not actually embraced that theory. The closest we came was basket of deplorables.

I think it also explains the whole "receding privilege" argument. I mean, I don't care in the slightest if my white privilege gets eroded. Not an iota of my identity comes from a sense of racial superiority or privilege in any way. My outlook is definitely affected, as is everyone's. But you can't scare me with black people moving into the neighborhood (my neighborhood has actually seen an influx of Muslims, probably settled from Afghanistan, and they have been less visible recently) because I don't fucking care about that at all.

But there are people whose identity is vested in the sense of white or male superiority, ranging from the extreme virulence to just seeing men as the natural leaders and women as complements. So what distinguishes them from me? I'm radically anti-authoritarian personality wise. I know, it seems incongruous with being a corporate law professor, but I am punk rock at my core. Obviously a personal anecdote is not data, but it's an illustration. Psychologists have data.

5. I don't want to get in a length back and forth again any more than you do, so I'll leave it at this. If we try materialism with people who love Trump because of the whole bit about "tell the lowest white man he's better than the highest black man and he'll open your wallet for you," it ain't gonna work. If we focus on psychology when peoples' anxieties are economic in nature, that ain't gonna work either.

 

[superrific]

For those of you, who like me, were poorly educated in the classics, not because of the schools I attended, but because of internal shotcomings, this quote is from Herman Melville's "Billy Budd." TGF Google. In college, getting me interested in the Classics, was like trying to paint plastic.

You don't have to be poorly educated not to recognize that quote. In fact, it's quite obscure as far as I know. Your lack of recognition isn't a comment on you; it's a comment on our resident literary genius who is able to pull quotes from classical literature the way I pull quotes from Tarantino.

And I'm not using the word genius sarcastically. I mean, it might be a bit of an overstatement given the type of ability at issue, but I am genuinely impressed not only with that poster's depth of knowledge but his recall as well.

 

[Centerpiece]

The Paine POV is altruistic and at least can be viewed as on the correct side of history… But that Utopia will get rolled over by Nazis, fascists and the American Taliban every single time. Rolled so quickly it’ll make your head spin. Messaging from the ground up - through the middle, in the center (in what ever fashion: MSM, Legacy M or new age podcasts and long form substack) is what may win the race.

Bo-siding is one thing, but you must sit astride the fence so you can see both sides, engage both sides, deal with both sides of the aisle. Once you jump down off the fence, and travel too far from it (left or right) you’re losing. If you travel so far, either way, so that you can no longer see the fence, you’re surely lost.

The hard right has lost sight of the fence. They’re so far away now, they don’t even realize or recall there ever was a fence. I still believe that AOC, Bernie - and those even farther left than they - can at least still see the fence and realize it’s actually there.

Remember, 36% of eligible voters didn’t vote at all in 2024. The independent voters, the registered unaffiliated, are the largest faction in the country, and its growing. They’re not Green Party or Libertarian… they’re unaffiliated because say can still see the fence. And I think most still sit astride the fence.

And I don’t mean they’re “on the fence” because they can’t make up their mind which way to step. No not at all. They’re on the fence because they choose to be. They’re Centrists. They see the good and bad of both sides. And they realize it’s ok to step off the fence - one way or the other - and dabble about on a side for a while, and maybe even decide to stay on that side…. But they’ll never stray too far away from the fence itself. They realize that is folly.

It’s those folks who still have their shit together. It’s those folks who respond to a poll with an unfavorable view of both parties.

Center Right or Center Left… whatever… but for humanities sake be somewhere in the middle.

The left MUST be closer to that. How else can you explain why longtime Republicans like Liz Cheney, John Kasich, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, George Bush, George Will, David Brooks, etc. etc. have all disavowed Trump and Maga? Few if any of those folks can be viewed as a “centrist” but by God they realize Maga has jumped the shark and they ain’t going that damn far down that road with them.

 

[superrific]

Bo-siding is one thing, but you must sit astride the fence so you can see both sides, engage both sides, deal with both sides of the aisle.

In fairness to Paine, this is how he understands what he's doing. He's telling people like me to talk to people across the fence as if they were not racist authoritarians -- or, perhaps more accurately, talk about them in that way. He wants to pull some of those folks to the better side of the fence.

 

[Centerpiece]

In fairness to Paine, this is how he understands what he's doing. He's telling people like me to talk to people across the fence as if they were not racist authoritarians -- or, perhaps more accurately, talk about them in that way. He wants to pull some of those folks to the better side of the fence.

I’m almost positive he is scrambling to find ways to bring some sanity to this insane position in which America finds itself. I really wish his suggested form(s) of messaging can find footing and actually work. I’m sure the Centerists of the world would appreciate it.

But as most know, there is no communicating with those who’ve strayed so far to the right of the fence. “The fence” for them is that great big beautiful wall that Mexico will pay for. Either that, or it’s the fence with razor wire in which to contain and “own” the libs.

 

[superrific]

But as most know, there is no communicating with those who’ve strayed so far to the right of the fence. “The fence” for them is that great big beautiful wall that Mexico will pay for. Either that, or it’s the fence with razor wire in which to contain and “own” the libs.

Paine has said multiple times that he recognizes that, but he wants to speak to the maybe 5% who aren't so far. On that point, he's correct that if successful, that could make a big difference when our elections are so close. I'm skeptical that it's easy to distinguish the true believers from the non-cultists but all of us really are speculating.

 

[Paine]

If you're talking about my silence, what it means is that I haven't looked at the board for 15 hours.

1. I don't know what you mean by the "limits" of personality-based explanations. It seems to me that if personality-based explanations were true, then you'd be making a big mistake focusing on material conditions because you won't reach anyone. Likewise, if personality isn't much of a factor, then focusing on it would make little sense. I

That's to say that this is an empirical question. What we should do depends very much on how the world is, and how the world is doesn't care about solidarity or shared struggle.

2. For instance: the last election was incoherent, right? A bunch of people who are supposedly mega-concerned about inflation, voting for the guy who was promising to increase inflation. And now that he's wrecking the economy, and people are losing their businesses, they are still reluctant to quit their Trump support. That suggests to me that material conditions weren't actually the driving force. What they wanted was a scapegoat. Hitler had the Jews, Trump has the invading Mexicans.

3. This empirical approach is difficult, to say the least, for a number of reasons that probably require little explanation. Have you seen the movie Full Metal Jacket. I've watched it several times. The first time, I was with some friends and we all agreed that if they were ever thinking about serving in the marines, no longer. Full Metal Jacket seems, to me, a pretty strong argument against military. And yet, the reality was that it dramatically improved recruiting when it came out, and recruiters credited it with a spike in enlistments. I'm not using this story to suggest anything about the issue of psychology or materiality; simply to say that sometimes it can be hard to understand a person's motivations either way.

4. You are aware of the book What's the Matter with Kansas, I'm sure. I haven't read it, and I'm not all that interested in the details of that particular debate. But that literature does marshal a lot of evidence of people voting against their economic interests, repeatedly and consistently. And it's not all that easy to explain, is it, in material terms. It's not hard to explain with personality. That doesn't mean the personality approach is 100% correct (I'm confident that authoritarian personalities are definitely a factor in creating Trump; how much of a factor is what's open for debate), but it is something the materialist has to reckon with.

That's why I think throwing out the psychology explanation in toto is not helpful. I should add that the Dems have not actually embraced that theory. The closest we came was basket of deplorables.

I think it also explains the whole "receding privilege" argument. I mean, I don't care in the slightest if my white privilege gets eroded. Not an iota of my identity comes from a sense of racial superiority or privilege in any way. My outlook is definitely affected, as is everyone's. But you can't scare me with black people moving into the neighborhood (my neighborhood has actually seen an influx of Muslims, probably settled from Afghanistan, and they have been less visible recently) because I don't fucking care about that at all.

But there are people whose identity is vested in the sense of white or male superiority, ranging from the extreme virulence to just seeing men as the natural leaders and women as complements. So what distinguishes them from me? I'm radically anti-authoritarian personality wise. I know, it seems incongruous with being a corporate law professor, but I am punk rock at my core. Obviously a personal anecdote is not data, but it's an illustration. Psychologists have data.

5. I don't want to get in a length back and forth again any more than you do, so I'll leave it at this. If we try materialism with people who love Trump because of the whole bit about "tell the lowest white man he's better than the highest black man and he'll open your wallet for you," it ain't gonna work. If we focus on psychology when peoples' anxieties are economic in nature, that ain't gonna work either.

Thanks for the reply. A few points in response, not to reignite a long back-and-forth, but to clarify why I think this conversation matters for how we think about political strategy and responsibility.

First, I’m not suggesting we “throw out” psychology. I’m questioning frameworks that treat personality traits as primary, fixed, or explanatory in themselves, especially when they’re used to write off entire blocs of people as inherently authoritarian or unreachable. You say this is an “empirical question,” and I agree, but the empirics don’t cleanly separate psychology from material context. People's political outlooks are shaped by their life experiences, class position, and the stories they’ve been told about what went wrong and who to blame. Material conditions and cultural meaning-making work together. Ignoring one distorts the other.

That’s why the “Trump voter who doesn’t care about inflation” example doesn’t disprove a materialist analysis, it reinforces the need for one. Why is someone in economic distress more convinced that immigrants are the cause than that billionaires are? Why is resentment organized downward, not upward? That’s a political outcome, not just a psychological quirk. And if we assume it’s just psychology, we give up on the hard work of re-framing the narrative and building solidarity.

On What’s the Matter with Kansas (which I had to read in college), I’d argue that the central question is precisely how people come to understand their interests. That’s not always straightforward. People vote against their economic interests when no one they trust has helped them see those interests as collective or reachable. It’s a failure of political education, trust-building, and movement infrastructure. Frank argues that culture war populism hijacks class anger and redirects it. That supports a materialist reading. It’s about how economic anxiety is manipulated, not how it’s irrelevant. I'd recommend you read the book and Frank's other works as well. Specifically Listen, Liberal and The People, No.

Finally, you suggest we shouldn’t chase dreams that might not be real. I’d counter that history has always involved people organizing around visions of what could be. The labor movement, the civil rights movement, Social Security. None of those gains would’ve been possible if people stuck with what seemed empirically safe. What matters is whether we’re building toward something that restores power to ordinary people. To do that, we have to believe they’re capable of more than what dominant elite frameworks assume.

Happy to leave it here unless others want to jump in, but I appreciate the exchange.

 

[Paine]

The Paine POV is altruistic and at least can be viewed as on the correct side of history… But that Utopia will get rolled over by Nazis, fascists and the American Taliban every single time. Rolled so quickly it’ll make your head spin. Messaging from the ground up - through the middle, in the center (in what ever fashion: MSM, Legacy M or new age podcasts and long form substack) is what may win the race.

Bo-siding is one thing, but you must sit astride the fence so you can see both sides, engage both sides, deal with both sides of the aisle. Once you jump down off the fence, and travel too far from it (left or right) you’re losing. If you travel so far, either way, so that you can no longer see the fence, you’re surely lost.

The hard right has lost sight of the fence. They’re so far away now, they don’t even realize or recall there ever was a fence. I still believe that AOC, Bernie - and those even farther left than they - can at least still see the fence and realize it’s actually there.

Remember, 36% of eligible voters didn’t vote at all in 2024. The independent voters, the registered unaffiliated, are the largest faction in the country, and its growing. They’re not Green Party or Libertarian… they’re unaffiliated because say can still see the fence. And I think most still sit astride the fence.

And I don’t mean they’re “on the fence” because they can’t make up their mind which way to step. No not at all. They’re on the fence because they choose to be. They’re Centrists. They see the good and bad of both sides. And they realize it’s ok to step off the fence - one way or the other - and dabble about on a side for a while, and maybe even decide to stay on that side…. But they’ll never stray too far away from the fence itself. They realize that is folly.

It’s those folks who still have their shit together. It’s those folks who respond to a poll with an unfavorable view of both parties.

Center Right or Center Left… whatever… but for humanities sake be somewhere in the middle.

The left MUST be closer to that. How else can you explain why longtime Republicans like Liz Cheney, John Kasich, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, George Bush, George Will, David Brooks, etc. etc. have all disavowed Trump and Maga? Few if any of those folks can be viewed as a “centrist” but by God they realize Maga has jumped the shark and they ain’t going that damn far down that road with them.

Hey man, I appreciate you giving my POV a fair shake. I get where you’re coming from. You’ve seen enough of the world to know that idealism alone doesn’t stand up when the storm hits. Nazis, fascists, and what you call the “American Taliban” will steamroll the dreamers if we’re not careful. I agree. The world isn’t kind to the naive.

But here’s where I part ways with your analysis. You’re mistaking caution for strategy and fence-sitting for clarity. You say the center is where the wisdom is because from there you can “see both sides.” But that assumes the “sides” are equally coherent, equally accountable, and equally tethered to reality. They’re not.

The Right has become a movement built on resentment, grievance, and hierarchy. The institutional Left, meanwhile, is paralyzed by technocracy, elite capture, and a fear of mass politics. And you’re right: a lot of voters are sick of both. But the unaffiliated voters you point to aren’t necessarily centrists. They’re often disengaged, cynical, overworked, and rightfully skeptical of anyone claiming to speak for them.

The task, then, isn’t to hug the fence. It’s to build a new path entirely. A path on the ground with the people the current system left behind. That doesn’t mean purity. It doesn’t mean utopia. It means having a backbone and a plan.

Bernie and AOC still “see the fence,” as you said. It’s because they’ve walked neighborhoods, knocked doors, and talked to people no one else will. But they’re not trying to balance between extremes. They’re trying to rebuild trust through material politics: healthcare, housing, wages, dignity. The irony is that what you call “centrism” used to be popular New Deal liberalism, which today gets dismissed as radical. Public jobs programs. Strong unions. Rural electrification. Social Security. All once seen as wild-eyed dreams. Now they’re the backbone of American life.

You said the dream gets rolled over every time. Maybe so. But the question is: what’s worth fighting for even if it gets rolled over? That’s where the soul of a movement lives. You’re right that messaging matters. But so does conviction. So does standing somewhere long enough that people know where to find you. If we want to reach the 36% who didn’t vote, the answer isn’t to water it all down until it’s flavorless.

That's not utopian; it's what I've started to call "populist realism."

 

[hedge]

I’d counter that history has always involved people organizing around visions of what could be.

This may be true, but if it is, isn't it just as true of Maga and the vision of what they think could be as it is of the other movements you mentioned?

Another question: You have mentioned "the elites" and the elite consensus more than a few times. I assume you would regard the ultra-wealthy as necessarily and perhaps by definition as part of the elite class. Do you think there should be a limit on how much wealth one person can accumulate or control? Like when a person achieves a net worth of, say, $1 billion, anything over and above that goes into the public coffers (perhaps you think in an ideal world the figure should be much less than this). After all, isn't maintaining (but never exceeding) a billion dollars in net worth more than sufficient incentive for a person to work as hard as they can? What are your thoughts on the (re)distribution of private wealth?

 

[Paine]

This may be true, but if it is, isn't it just as true of Maga and the vision of what they think could be as it is of the other movements you mentioned?

Another question: You have mentioned "the elites" and the elite consensus more than a few times. I assume you would regard the ultra-wealthy as necessarily and perhaps by definition as part of the elite class. Do you think there should be a limit on how much wealth one person can accumulate or control? Like when a person achieves a net worth of, say, $1 billion, anything over and above that goes into the public coffers (perhaps you think in an ideal world the figure should be much less than this). After all, isn't maintaining (but never exceeding) a billion dollars in net worth more than sufficient incentive for a person to work as hard as they can? What are your thoughts on the (re)distribution of private wealth?

You are absolutely right that MAGA is also a vision of what could be. I would argue that is what makes it powerful and dangerous. It taps into discontent with the status quo and offers a story of national renewal. The problem is that it is a reactionary story. It tells people they have lost their place in the world because of “outsiders”: immigrants, coast liberals, social change. And it scapegoats those groups instead of naming the actual power structures: corporate consolidation, political capture, economic abandonment.

The task for the left is not to scoff at MAGA supporters but to offer a different and better story. One that sees their struggles not as fiction but as real. A story of solidarity instead of resentment. That is what I mean when I say we need to organize around a vision of what could be.

This doesn’t mean I expect to be able to “convert” MAGA voters with some economic populist panacea. Rather, I see strategic value in a political stance that doesn’t pathologize. Too much of liberal discourse treats these voters as irredeemable or deluded. That only hardens divisions and pushes people further into grievance politics. We should aim to break the cycle of mutual contempt. Not by capitulating to reactionary ideas, but by refusing to mirror the condescension.

On your second question: yes, I absolutely believe we should place real limits on the accumulation of private wealth. Not as punishment, but as a recognition that extreme wealth is corrosive to democracy. It buys influence, distorts policy, and puts more and more power into unaccountable hands.

A wealth cap is one policy idea among many. Some people talk about 100 percent marginal tax rates beyond a certain threshold, others about wealth taxes, inheritance limits, or corporate governance reforms. The details can be debated, but the principle is clear: no individual should wield more economic power than entire communities or even governments. That is just neo-feudalism.

This is not about resentment, or envy, or a personal moral judgement It is about restoring balance. You cannot have a functioning democracy when one person can bankroll a political campaign, dominate the housing market, and control the town newspaper while millions cannot afford insulin or rent.

We do not need to hate the rich. But we do need to stop designing our entire political and economic system to serve them.

 

[hedge]

A billionaire cap is one policy idea among many.

What are your ideas on the limits of personal wealth accumulation and what would the attempt to achieve them look like? I haven't given it much thought but I suspect you have, or at least have looked into much more closely than I. Just wondering if you've come across anything you perceive as remotely workable. It's very difficult for me to imagine and frankly I'm not sure if it's even desirable, but again, I really haven't give it much thought, although I did participate in an Occupy Wall Street gathering (only b/c I happened to be in town and I went to check it out and somebody handed me a flag)...

 

[mpaer]

We do not need to hate the rich. But we do need to stop designing our entire political and economic system to serve them.

this
The Dem messaging too often almost hate

 

[Paine]

To extend the analogy, though, gravity is non-negotiable. You can't make water flow up. You can't redirect capital flow just where you want.

I'd also extend the analogy with a canal: while the surface of the canal so to speak is political, the existence of the canal is not,.

Yes, gravity is non-negotiable. But in politics, the forces shaping capital flows aren’t natural laws, they’re human-made. Tax codes, labor rules, public investments, trade agreements. These shape the “gravity.”

Saying “you can’t make water flow up” masks a political choice as a natural limit. That’s the ideological trick of neoliberalism: it treats constructed systems as immutable facts.

 

[Paine]

What are your ideas on the limits of personal wealth accumulation and what would the attempt to achieve them look like? I haven't given it much thought but I suspect you have, or at least have looked into much more closely than I. Just wondering if you've come across anything you perceive as remotely workable. It's very difficult for me to imagine and frankly I'm not sure if it's even desirable, but again, I really haven't give it much thought, although I did participate in an Occupy Wall Street gathering (only b/c I happened to be in town and I went to check it out and somebody handed me a flag)...

I don’t necessarily think it’s about drawing a hard line (like $999 million and not a cent more) but about what kind of economy supports human flourishing and democratic control. Extreme wealth concentration isn’t just unfair, it’s corrosive. It warps everything from housing and healthcare to politics and the media. A small group ends up making decisions for everyone else, with no real accountability.

I support steeply progressive taxation, serious inheritance taxes, and public or democratic ownership in key sectors where monopoly and rent-seeking dominate. The goal isn’t to punish success, it’s to stop success from turning into dominance. There should still be room to build, to innovate, even to get rich. But there’s a point where wealth turns into power, and power without consent is the problem.

As for feasibility: I think that’s the right concern to raise. I don’t pretend these kinds of reforms pass tomorrow. But that’s exactly why they need to be said out loud.

The most transformative economic reforms in American history were once dismissed as impossible too, but they happened because people built a movement that forced them onto the agenda. Today, ideas like wealth taxes already have broad public support. What’s missing is both the political leadership willing to champion them with clarity and urgency and the mass organizations to channel their demands.

 

[hedge]

LOL, that's me on the wall holding said flag at the 39 second mark..

 

[hedge]

A small group ends up making decisions for everyone else, with no real accountability.

Sounds like the Supreme Court...