Last week, a convicted felon was elected to the highest office of the most powerful country in the world. Given his track record, that, in itself, is an indication that the American electorate was voting against the alternative more than for the Republican candidate himself. While history will likely point to many reasons for Kamala Harris’ defeat (public perceptions of inflation, the economy, immigration and political weakness), it might be an idea to focus on how many people across a wide spectrum voting for the ex-president were voting against Democrat elitism.

This may seem strange since the Democratic Party has always identified itself as the party of the working class, the trade unions, the minorities and those defending the rights of the vulnerable and the under-represented. How did they become identified as the party of the elite?

American politics has been shaken to the core over the last 10 years, not just on the Republican side, but across the left-wing as well. Trump’s categorical electoral college win last week means both parties will have to redefine themselves by the next election. While other political spectrums in other countries with proportional representation have a multitude of parties evolving to meet the political trends, weaving in and out of coalition governments, the Anglo-Saxon first-past-the-post system makes politics largely a duopoly of the two strongest parties.

It has become a four-year tradition for the Risk-Monger to write a commentary on how the use of emerging communications tools had shaped US elections. Eight years ago, in Hail to the Tweet, I observed how Trump made use of Twitter to engage with his followers rather than go through the traditional campaign process. Four years ago I questioned how the Democrats could have come so close to losing an election to a failed President suffering from the effects of pandemic restrictions. Democratic Party elitism was becoming evident back then and voters did not appreciate being lectured at by a smarmy social justice army. This year, again, emerging communications tools played an important role in determining the winner of the election for the leader of the free world (… eight years on, I am having a harder time saying that one out loud).

The Mainstream Media Elite

While Democrats were mobilising boots on the ground to get out the vote and relying on the mainstream media support, leading Republicans were doing podcasts, X Spaces and social media memes and engagement. What is left of the mainstream media, the press, has been seen as elitist, out of touch and untrusted. Now funded mostly by foundations and billionaires, their editors are having to provide content for their special interest groups. They no longer have the tools to keep a finger on the pulse of the concerns of the general population.

So bad has their reputation become that Jeff Bezos had to write an article explaining why his Washington Post did not endorse a US presidential candidate (and it wasn’t, apparently, to protect his business interests in the event that Trump would win). He claimed that the mainstream media had lost the trust of the American public and was perceived as “elite”, “biased” and “lacking credibility”.  The owner of the Washington Post stated:

Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions. The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves.

In an article on Bezos’ letter, for the Firebreak, I could not help but observe that his criticisms of online media (as off-the-cuff, inaccurate and unverified) was undeniably elitist. Attacking other news sources by claiming they spread misinformation has become the last strategic attempt by an out-of-touch media to try to hold on to influence and trust. What they need to do is trust that their readers are capable of sorting out fact from fiction by themselves.

Most large news organisations are seen as backing the left-wing causes of the Democratic Party. … Elitist.

Foundation Elite

The explosion of wealth creation over the last 25 years (in four waves: from internet to social media to crypto to AI billionaires) has created a plethora of newly created but poorly managed foundations, with some groups, like Effective Altruism, bordering on cult status. Into the vacuum, a large number of donor consultants, fiscal sponsors and fund managers have tapped into their networks to advance their special interests. Billions are flowing into environmental NGOs and activist campaigns to advance media coverage, academic research and political action on climate change, renewable energy, food safety, chemical risks and social justice issues.

Most voters, struggling with inflation, job security, healthcare and getting their kids a decent education saw these ‘champagne socialist’ issues as elitist and detached from their reality. The Democratic Party got pulled in, making decisions to acquiesce to their well-funded activist wing, at the expense of their traditional working class voter base. That billionaires were behind these decisions made for the privileged class just further incensed the American voter.

Over the summer, I was trying to understand what this thing the media called the Democratic Party Machine was. After a dismal debate, where Joe Biden revealed how incapacitated he had become, people referred to this “Party Machine” that was keeping him in power and as the presidential candidate. It clearly wasn’t some secret cabal or small insulated group of strategists. After seeing how the foundations work together via their network of insiders, with the billions splashed out on influential media groups, NGOs, academics and lobbyists, I concluded that this was the machine that was driving America’s Democratic Party agenda. Having the political narratives controlled by a coalition of billionaire philanthropists does not help reduce the perception of left-wing elitism.

Kamala Harris, although not supported by the Party Machine, had more than 100 billionaires, as well as Hollywood elite, donating to her, far more than Donald Trump (although having Elon Musk bounce around on stage didn’t hurt).

The Decline of Expert Elite

Being told to “listen to the facts” by an ivory tower elite of academics, scientists and think tanks does not appeal to an untrusting population. People want to understand what concerns them, they want to go online and try to determine what they should do. They also want simple explanations and simple solutions. They don’t want someone in a suit or a lab coat using complicated words to tell them what to do, and they certainly don’t want to be lectured at.

Over the summer I published one of my most painful articles on the decline of scientific expertise. It gave multiple examples of cases where the public were not interested in the scientific evidence, basing decisions, rather, on how they felt. They did not trust the experts, deemed too elite and out-of-touch, preferring to accept information, however inadequate, from people like them.

One of the problems with academic elitism is that the more arrogant part of the intellectual class (is there any other kind?) will claim there is a scientific consensus supporting their view. Once they have established “they are right”, they then get busy censoring or ostracising anyone who might challenge their elevated position (calling them sceptics or deniers). Cancel culture is alive and well in the snake pit known as the academe.

The Green Elite

The Green Left of the Democratic Party has been seen as pushing their elite food and ecological preferences on the majority, demanding more market share for more expensive organic food, banning all processed foods, prioritising renewable energy (for those who own their houses) and electric vehicles that cost twice as much. People struggling to pay their rent are not interested in these feel-good environmental campaigns and don’t have the time or the means to buy into their fear campaigns. They are beginning to see the marketers behind the green alternatives as scam artists and the rich elite promoting them as fools.

The post-capitalist deindustrialisation strategy of left-leaning academics, promoting a degrowth future for America, did not attract a population trying to pay their bills, unwilling to accept higher costs and less employment. Wealthy elites, bankers and those fed by foundations can postulate such a future, but they won’t be able to count on too many votes. Trump deftly portrayed them (formerly a conservative base) as obstacles to the American Dream.

The 2024 election, though, did have a curious evolution in the green, foodie movement.

The RFK Conundrum

Robert Kennedy Jr’s decision to support the Trump campaign came as an act of desperation. His radical views were shunned by the Democratic elite and his polls were woefully single digit so he had no other choice but to side with the pro-business, pro-oil Trump campaign. But his ecological elitism, pacifism, anti-industry pedigree and food puritanism would put him at the far left of the Democratic party (if you could ignore his idiotic positions on vaccines, agriculture, raw milk and fluoridation … to name just a few).

Trump’s opportunism managed to weave him into his fold (in a bizarre ‘Make America Healthy Again’ sideshow). He managed to attract anti-vaxxers, Bernie Sanders supporters and foodies like the Food Babe who, strangely, was celebrating the “MAHA movement” as oxygen for her Kellogg’s food additives campaign. I guess Vani won’t be invited back to the next DNC.

It is clear this is RFK Jr’s last chance to make an impact in national politics and he is hoping for a role in upsetting the apple cart at the FDA, CDC and USDA. But given how his environmental-health extremism will set him on a collision course with the less-elitist Trump administration, his tenure will last, at most, six months. He would be better off making a play for an ambassador posting (maybe to Sri Lanka or Samoa).

The Crypto Contrarians

Trump’s most successful manoeuvre during the 2024 campaign was to cuddle up to the crypto class. Given how his fiscal laxity will likely tank the dollar, having the US as a leader in crypto-currencies will offer a useful escape hatch (and an alternative reserve).

The financial elite, in the likes of Jamie Dimon, have shunned crypto as illegitimate and hard-currency puritans have condemned the crypto sector as the unregulated domain of drug dealers, criminal underworld and international cartels. Although ETFs for BTC and ETH now exist, crypto is still a contrarian trade mostly for those with little faith in the dollar. Following from the FTX-Sam Bankman-Fried scandal, the investing elite has determined crypto as a sector to avoid.

What was impressive was how these (mostly) gamers living in their parents’ basements (mostly) were able to fund the successful electoral campaigns of pro-crypto candidates. As the largest donors in this election, the crypto lobby has quickly become a political force to be reckoned with. Many Congressional wins are thanks to the clicks of these gamers. You just can’t make this shit up.

The Risk-Monger plans to hold onto his stake in ADA … as he is far from elitist (but somewhat wealthier at the moment).

Trump’s Anti-Elitism

Trump positioned himself as a voice for the anti-elite with his MAGA movement becoming the antipathy of the silver spoon class. As a vulgar property developer bouncing in and out of bankruptcy, the Donald was always rejected by the New York elite (no matter how many times the nouveau riche wannabe pissed into a golden toilet). It is no understatement to say vengeance is high on his priority list after their caustic history.

And Trump played it up, serving fries at a McDonald’s or riding a garbage truck, ridiculing elitist missteps by the Democrats.

While many will expect a second Trump term to be a return to his principles as a New York liberal, we must not underestimate how his campaign ideology may curtail his ingrained dogma. In nominating J.D. Vance as his running mate (now vice-president elect and designated heir apparent), it is clear that Trump’s rejection of left-wing elitism was not just naked opportunism. He has nothing left but a legacy to build and, as the American public has rejected left-wing elitism, he is literally free to do what he wants.

The next four years will be painfully curious.

—–

Enjoyed this read (free with no ads)? Support The Risk-Monger via Patreon.
Become a Gold-Monger patron for 5 € / $ per month and get David’s newsletter.