26 Comments

I'll go back and read the referenced piece about the previous poll, but how is "a strong skepticism of society’s elites" something to be concerned about? It sounds like one of the founding principles of our country, along with a strong skepticism of the masses - hence our Republican form of government that seeks to restrain both elite and mass enthusiasms that threaten to trample on individual rights.

Expand full comment

The short answer is that "a strong skepticism of society's elites" isn't necessarily, or by itself, grounds for concern. Certainly versions of that skepticism ought to be grounds for concern—such as a view that society's elites, or more specifically government elites, are actively trying to harm constituents. But the description as you've reproduced it isn't automatically worrisome.

But the author agrees, as he wrote in a piece summarizing the previous poll he conducted:

"It should be added that exhibiting a single attitude that appears consistent with populism does not make someone a 'populist.' Under our model, populism involves a series of attitudes and dynamics that include supporting a violation of the strictures of liberal democracy. People can identify with a leader or criticize national elites for thoughtful and defensible reasons, without approving that leader’s violating legal constraints on executive power. In searching for populists, then, we are interested in a combination of views that, taken together, could prove problematic."

Expand full comment

Agree!

There's also an "un-populist" form of authoritarianism that the article fails to address: If one's right to swing one's arms ends where someone else's nose begins, "experts" are quick to recommend that we protect "freedom" and "equity" (especially for "the most vulnerable") by putting everyone in a straitjacket.

A populist response - taking its inspiration from the KKK (Kerouac, Kesey, & Kafka) - should come as no surprise.

Expand full comment

It all depends on how "elites" are defined. It isn't bad when limited to political elites. But the skepticism has spread to rejecting any authority whatsoever. My ignorance is equal to your expertise. It is one thing to question authorities--- which is healthy and another thing to reject authorities in general which is the sort of skepticism I see running rampant nowadays.

The genius of our founding principles was, while accommodating the voice of the masses, power remained largely in control of the elites. Through the Senate, the Electoral College, and the state governments the elites maintained dominance and overall control of the Republic.

Expand full comment

I expect to see Harris issue the average number of executive orders depending on the composition of the House and Senate.

If, as I expect, she will have a Republican House and Senate there is every reason to believe the only way in which she will have any authority will be through executive orders and the veto. If Republicans waste less time on meaningless performative investigations and more time reasserting Congress as a coequal branch of government they could significantly cut back on executive power.

Further now is the time to challenge the legality of "signing statements" on bills sent to the President. It is an attempt to usurp the power of Congress to legislate and the Courts to interpret the meaning and Constitutionality of laws.

While the SCOTUS has radically expanded the concept of executive immunity for Trump I am certain that given the opportunity they will also be eager to restrain executive power where it infringes upon legislative prerogatives. Depending, of course, on the party of the incumbent and the partisan composition of Congress.

If Harris has a Democratic majority in both houses (depending of the fate of the filibuster) the perceived need for executive action will be less. If Congressional majorities are divided then the perceived need increases.

I say perceived need because these are essentially political actions meant to signal messages to the political base of the executive and not in response to an emergency or as a temporary action until Congress can act.

Expand full comment

More Harris supporters view evangelicals negatively than Trump supporters view gays & lesbians (especially when "trans" is not part of the equation)? Very interesting!

As a gay male, I'm relieved. As an old-school liberal, I'm alarmed & embarrassed (though I'm not really surprised).

Expand full comment

Or, perhaps they understand that evangelical Christian nationalists have a long history of attempting or actually inflicting harm on other communities--- from opposing civil and voting rights for blacks to banning books. The harms are inflicted by political action.

Whereas conservatives tend to see the harm caused by LGBT people is mostly passive and cultural and therefore less of a threat. Evangelicals wish to punish the sinners. Trump supporters just want them to go back in the closet and shut up.

Also the alliance between corporate oligarchs and evangelical Christians is an interesting blending of interests as well.

An interesting book on the history of the ascendency of modern evangelical political movement is by Kevin Kruse:

https://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-God-Corporate-ebook/dp/B00PWX7R56/ref=sr_1_3?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RmQKxxCkAlI1OZgG5IDN1VmpRJSggbEJuYPtKa2-k4Cr8Rxz1Ilc2tVFIFaK03XWJSlpp6b6t5BLgMw8Bb5jOKzbqZPiZIopy1lbJbMdR4Ee8rmv5ZtUeWN_EPWTjmzYnVQnDNW2LlY7eplUAd2t-xN6kusNGdP4i44NOcZqCb6nngpjYmQEEj5PSCZO8HmXOl9u9kloWor8dlFiRhICSCzEWKQJ0dlVjOYkaYrhOOk.xVlbC6ofbWd3sonvIb8F9VD623wuxroscRZEle7asSY&dib_tag=se&qid=1729335029&refinements=p_27%3AKevin+M.+Kruse&s=books&sr=1-3

Expand full comment

Who wants whom to go back into the closet?

I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud simply to be myself.

I prize the widespread acceptance that gay men and lesbians have already gained -- and I'll fight to preserve those gains -- but I, for one, never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some ("expert"-driven) Brave New World.

As long as I know how to love, I know I'll stay alive.

PS: FWIW, I'm no Trumpster. I voted twice for Obama, for Bernie (as a California write-in, in preference to Nurse Ratched) in 2016, and for Biden in 2020. I expect to vote for Kamala this time around -- on the strength of her (notably non-"woke") nomination-acceptance speech.

Meanwhile, as we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.

Live and let live!

Expand full comment

You are lucky to have the luxury and privilege of living in California. Those of us living under the DeSantis regime in the "Free State of Florida" feel the pressure from evangelical Christian nationalists differently.

As a "One Nation" conservative I genuinely do believe that there can be a world without out-groups. Where free speech doesn't lead to death threats. Where there is an equality between freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

I will be voting for Harris with whom I have few policy agreements and with whom I am neither especially impressed with or from whom I expect much because I have no other choice for whom to vote.

I also am weary of Social Justice Jihadists of all stripes fighting the culture wars.

As to the gays all I have to say is this: In 1895 Oscar Wilde referred to homosexuality as "The Love that dare not speak its name..." in 2025 I would say homosexuality is the love that just won't shut up. Nevertheless I have no desire to see Gays, Lesbians, transpersons or drag performers disappeared from the public square.

As Simon Gray said in his scathing play "Butley":

"Of course, they’ve almost vanished anyway, the old-style queens and queers, the poofs, the fairies. The very words seem to conjure up a magical world of naughty thrills, forbidden fruits - sorry - you know, I used to enjoy them enjoying themselves. Their varied performances contributed to my life’s varieties. But now the law, in making them safe, has made them drab". So few things are quite as boring, repetitive and predictable than the modern urban Gay Pride event or parade.

Expand full comment

The survey asked about "Evangelicals" (among other religious and ethnic groups like Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics). It didn't specify "Christian Nationalists" -- and that's the problem with your biased formulation (and it's crucial to the point I was making).

There are plenty of Evangelicals turned off by Christian nationalism (as per Jose's comment citing David French), just as there are many, many gays who aren't out to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" or who aren't on-board with "Queer" or even "LGBTQIA+." Politicians and apparatchiks will attempt to exploit (real or imagined) grievances on all sides. Politics is a dirty business.

Meanwhile, you have your nerve lumping all Evangelicals in with a loathsome politician like DeSantis. However, if your notion of "freedom from religion" means forcing believers into a closet -- instead, you might try, simply, to live and let live.

Finally, as for the lines you quote from "Butley" -- "I used to enjoy them enjoying themselves.... But now the law, in making them safe, has made them drab"? All I can say is:

You never turned around to see the frowns

On the jugglers and the clowns when they all did tricks for you

You never understood that it ain't no good

You shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you

Perhaps your recipe for "One Nation conservatism" could stand just a little less hubris. I'll watch my own back, thank you -- and you watch yours. If you simply can't stand your neighbors, maybe you should live somewhere other than (or in another part of) Florida. And if you go to South Beach or Wilton Manors, please don't gawk at the locals as if you're at a zoo. ;-)

Expand full comment

All Christian nationalists are evangelical or Catholic but not all evangelicals or Catholics are Christian nationalists.

The DeSantis (and Republican) base IS in fact largely composed of Evangelical Christians some of whom are Christian nationalists. They are the ones taking over school boards in Florida, banning books and so forth.

Expand full comment

This could be a matter for a much longer discussion, and i don't have the time for it here. Suffice it to say...

I'm against banning books, against discrimination in housing and hiring, and (certainly) bullying. And if there's ever an attempt to reinstate "sodomy" laws, you'll see me fighting it, out in the streets. No further discussion needed there.

OTOH, discussions of sexuality or "gender identity" are rightly in the purview of the family, not of the State.

Should "The Gender Unicorn" or "The Genderbread Man" (or discussions of sexual identity or orientation) be part of an elementary school curriculum? Are you aware that, in California, if your son identifies as a girl at school, and if this is disclosed to you as a parent, the school district can be sued by the State? I'm not on-board with any of that -- and I think "the LGBT community" is making a big mistake by pushing for (or defending) such policies.

All of this is a far cry from denying teaching jobs to gay people (a form of discrimination that I oppose).

Why do I make a big deal about this? Simple: imagine that the shoe were on the other foot. Full stop!

Expand full comment

The moment you define a group of people by their religious belief and then treat them as an out-group, you're engaging in religious discrimination. There's at least one ethical and principled evangelical christian, David French. I hope there are many more.

The deplorable actions of groups that tend to be evangelical are what should be repudiated instead of the religious nature of their association.

Expand full comment

I am not defending treating evangelicals as an out-group. I am only stating why so many have become alienated from them. Those of us attached to mainstream churches always looked at the evangelicals as puritanical odd balls who stuck to themselves and just let them be. But when they became militant and began to take over the Republican Party they took a rather intolerant attitude to those who would not fall in line with them.

David French is not a Christian nationalist. That is the difference.

Expand full comment

"Christian Nationalist" is probably better, as it includes Catholic nationalists as well as evangelicals.

Expand full comment

@Harley "Griff" Lofton, you write: "I am not defending treating evangelicals as an out-group. I am only stating why so many have become alienated from them."

You're being disingenuous here. You claim you're not "defending" a prejudice, but then -- in what you're "only stating" -- you're making excuses for it. I'm all-too-familiar with that sort of "genteel" prejudice as both a gay man and a Jew.

That sort of attitude is precisely what prompted my initial comment. What I found noteworthy is that it's more prevalent among Harris supporters (re Evangelicals) than it is among Trump supporters (against gays).

Lay off the excuses already! Live and let live!

Expand full comment

Honestly, in what universe do you imagine her trying to restrain executive power? It sounds about as likely as Harris advocating for abortion moments at 12 weeks.

Expand full comment

Look at it a different way: the fact that her base registered a willingness to back a potential program of implementing executive restraint says something about *them*—certainly relative to Trump’s base. As such, it says something about the difference between the level of each side’s current inclination toward illiberalism.

Expand full comment

What evidence if any do you have that Harris would be in any way restrained in using executive orders? she certainly announced many that she plans to executive order

Expand full comment

I've just discovered I'm a populist! I harbor deep skepticism of financial and governmental elites.

In my defense, I was an adult with soon-to-be-draftable children during the Iraq war. I had a mortgage and a job during the '08 financial crisis. My favorite parts of this essay are about curbing executive power, but I would expand that to all governmental power, especially at the federal level.

I'm not terribly hopeful that Harris will actually make any progress in this area, because she has yet to show strong leadership in any area. I much prefer that to strong leadership in the wrong direction, however.

Expand full comment

Actually, according to our methodology, skepticism of elites isn't by itself enough to warrant the populist label.

There are four characteristics the study associates with populism, and a respondent has to check off at least three to qualify. The author goes into this point toward the beginning of this conversation. It's actually pretty fascinating stuff: https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/tracking-populist-attitudes-among

Thanks for reading!

Expand full comment

No more Kings.

Expand full comment

I don’t see a link to the survey.

Expand full comment