Blame the Voter, Save the System

How blaming voters is a strategy of containment.

Trump isn’t the source of American decline. He’s a symptom of it.
But in much of elite liberal politics, that diagnosis gets flipped. The blame doesn’t go to the people who designed a system that stopped working for millions. It goes to the voters who noticed.

This tactic—blaming the electorate—is not just condescending. It’s strategic. It protects the status quo by turning public anger downward, toward the disillusioned, rather than upward, toward those in power. It allows a failed establishment to survive by convincing people that the real threat to democracy is not capital, or war, or bipartisan decay—but their neighbors.

The Comfort of Downward Blame

When liberal institutions lose public trust, they often look for someone to blame. And more and more, they’ve turned that blame not toward the architects of policy failure, but toward the public itself.

After Trump’s rise, elite liberal culture became obsessed—not with the system that enabled him, but with the people who voted for him. It became common to hear phrases like “low information voters,” “rural resentment,” or “white working-class backlash” used to explain what went wrong. These weren’t neutral descriptions. They were ways of treating entire communities as broken or irrational, as if they had simply failed to behave properly.

Photo by Josh Berendes on Unsplash

This kind of blame served a purpose. It let the political class preserve its sense of moral authority. If the problem was those voters—resentful, misguided, uneducated—then the solution was people like us: rational, credentialed defenders of democracy. The story became not that the system had failed, but that certain voters didn’t understand it.

But this isn’t just about identity or tone. It’s about power. Contempt is useful. It directs anger toward people with the least influence, rather than those who helped deregulate the economy, gut the safety net, and steer us into endless war. It makes it easier to sneer at voters in Michigan or West Virginia than to admit that elite liberalism helped build the world Trump now exploits.

Liberalism’s Fantasy of Neutrality

Liberalism tells a flattering story about itself. It claims to be a neutral set of rules and institutions that help diverse people live together and settle disagreements peacefully. It says it doesn’t take sides. It just protects the conditions for democracy.

But that’s not what liberalism really is. It’s a political tradition like any other, with its own values and blind spots. It was built to protect private property, individual freedom, markets, and limited government. These are not neutral priorities. They reflect a specific view of what matters—and who gets to matter.

That’s why liberalism struggles when people demand economic justice. It can handle debates about policy or identity, but it resists demands that challenge its deeper commitments—things like redistributing wealth, canceling debt, or putting public goods ahead of profit. When people call for these things, they’re often told they’re being unrealistic, divisive, or a threat to stability.

This isn’t because liberalism is allergic to democracy. It’s because it defines democracy in a narrow way—mostly through voting, courts, and process. When real power starts to shift, when people want not just inclusion but ownership, liberalism moves to protect itself. It uses institutions to manage dissent, not expand the boundaries of possibility.

Manufactured Consent Through Shame

If liberalism can no longer offer hope or stability, then it needs something else to hold it together. That something is shame.

Liberalism likes to talk about tolerance, but it’s often selective about who gets included. People who speak the right way, believe the right things, or fit into the right professional class are welcomed. But when people are angry—when they talk about the economy, about power, about the things that actually shape their lives—they’re seen as a threat. Tolerance turns into judgment. Instead of building solidarity, this version of liberal politics divides people. It draws lines between the “good” kind of voter and the “bad” kind, between those who are still seen as reasonable and those who aren’t. It doesn’t bring people together. It keeps them in their place.

The anger so often mocked or dismissed by liberal pundits didn’t appear out of thin air. It came from somewhere real. For decades, both parties backed trade deals that hollowed out communities, crushed unions, and made healthcare unaffordable. Wages stagnated while costs soared. Young people were told to take on mountains of debt just to have a shot at stability. The safety net was shredded. Whole towns were left behind, then blamed for their own decline. These weren’t accidents—they were political choices. And when people finally began to turn against the system that failed them, they were told the real problem was their attitude.

When people express this anger or rightfully stop believing in the system, they’re not met with serious reflection. They’re met with scolding. Trump voters aren’t just wrong—they’re immoral. Poor or working-class communities in crisis aren’t struggling under decades of economic abandonment—they’re backward, racist, or lazy. Anyone who questions party leadership is accused of helping the other side.

This kind of shaming builds a hierarchy of legitimacy. People who are well-educated, professional, and fluent in liberal language are assumed to know best. Everyone else is treated as a problem to be solved—or a threat to be neutralized.

The goal here isn’t persuasion. It’s discipline. It’s about keeping people inside a narrow idea of what counts as reasonable politics. If you want more than the system can offer, the problem is not the system—it’s you.

This is how elite liberalism has drifted toward a soft form of authoritarianism. It no longer governs by consent. It governs by containment. And shame is a powerful way to make people contain themselves.

The Real Villains Are Still in Power

While blame rains down on voters, the people most responsible for America’s decline remain untouched. They’re not forgotten outsiders or rural voters. They’re at the heart of the political and economic establishment—donors, consultants, media executives, policy elites. They are often sitting comfortably in multi-million dollar homes.

They’re the ones who deregulated Wall Street, privatized public goods, expanded the surveillance state, and pushed a war economy while neglecting basic social needs. They bailed out corporations and left ordinary people behind. And now they warn us that the biggest threat to democracy is the voter.

They are not defending democracy. They are defending themselves—from accountability.

Blaming voters keeps the structure intact. It divides the public against itself and gives those in power a free pass. It teaches people that their anger is a flaw, not a signal. That their disillusionment is dangerous, not understandable.

But a democracy that refuses to confront its ruling class is not a democracy. And a system that can only survive by turning the public against itself is already in decline.

The Way Out Is Through Truth

The way out isn’t more scolding or managed dissent. It’s truth.

Truth about what the system has become. Truth about who broke it—and who benefits from pretending it still works. If we want to build something better, we have to stop blaming voters for seeing the world clearly. Many of them do. What they see is a system that no longer serves the public—and a ruling class that would rather point fingers than take responsibility.

The future of democracy depends not on rescuing the status quo, but on moving past the fear, the shame, and the endless blame. It depends on our ability to look upward instead of turning against each other—and to demand something more than a better brand of decline.

---

If you found this valuable, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support helps me write with independence, clarity, and accountability. To speak honestly about the system we live in and how we might build something better. Plus you’ll get weekly bonus content including reading and listening recommendations and additional essays.

Thanks for reading.