And, wouldn’t the media’s continuous totting of where was the national guard on Jan 6?, be in conflict of laws prohibiting the use of military personnel against US citizens? Direct violation of The Posse Comitatus Act signed by president Hayes?

I keep promising myself that I will stop commenting on this site, forgive me.

Now, Berlin government acts (action) on “controlling costs” on rent, forced takeovers of large conglomerate real estates controlled by foreign capitalists (us), public wide laws established by the state, upheld by the courts (under state control) against profiteering financial forces to protect the people for the “better of the whole”, and only through government decision, participation and force IS this possible, as we are witness.

Is this not reminiscent of certain “20th century forced government” doctrine?

Your guests point is also well taken. I said it early that the far right, white support of trump or change as they had hoped for represents the poorest of our “superior” economic system. Those who need social reform and securities most were the first to bite the hand that feeds them, and for them not to see the immediate benefits of Bernie Sanders was a sign of widespread ignorance to the rest of the planet representing the severe lack of education and honorable media in this nation.
What must also be mentioned here, is the awareness of perpetual manipulation that is working relentlessly from all controlling authorities in a cesspool system of govt. Let us be aware that 2nd amendment rights are still active law and that the attack on the capital will now be used by the opposing parties to condemn such acts and declare them sacrilegious! Aside from the motive for Jan. 6, which I see as one of complete ignorance, we will now be hammered with programming that says no motive “what so ever” can ever again justify such acts against these representative gods (all who reign free of prosecution). Therefore; the intent of the “right to bear arms” is to use them on yourself when democracy is threatened (and or shopping malls and public schools)

Ms. Hochschild seems like a nice enough social scholar who truly wishes to explain the alarming "river wide rift between our two political parties in order to find common ground for all of us to move forward upon. However her presentation was far from the “treat” promised by our fawning host. To the contrary, it was a babbling and incoherent presentation of the alleged origins of the fomenting anger within the political right. If this is her goal (I couldn’t tell), then it appeared to me that either she is interviewing the wrong people…or not understanding what they are telling her. For a brief moment I thought she was going to make a cogent point by explaining the distinction between a “complaint” among the far right and a bonafide “grievance”. But, alas, she failed elaborate in the slightest—- much less crack this potential nugget for her audience. Perhaps she does this in her book, but I have no faith that her book does any better at explaining this distinction then did her talk. However, playing out that potential argument in my own mind, it seems any distinction made in order to trace legitimate origins of anger would actually be a moot point in this current political climate.

In my opinion “Trumpism” is not “lightning in a jar” as one of her interviewees explains, but rather simply populist lightning itself. It’s polarized power attached itself in 2016 to the only lightning rod which gave the illusion (for better or for worse) of not being firmly planted in a political swamp. I feel that populist “lightning” will continue to try and attach itself to any loftier “ism” that comes down the pike (with or without Trump) until the “grievance” Ms. Hochschild obliquely alluded to is resolved. In this sense, the phenomena becomes a matter of basic physics, not politics.

I look forward to a future effort by Ms. Hochschild to clearly make her point to the masses for God only knows where that lightning will strike next if not properly grounded.

Cheers!
Sonny Wiehe