Probably the best indicator of how MAGA has reverted to traditional Republican orthodoxy from Populism is Scott Bessent’s remark on how people could approach the affordability crisis. He suggested they move from a blue state to a red state. It is reminiscent of Ohio Senator Robert Taft’s observation in 1946 when he recommended that food prices could be ameliorated by reducing their consumption — “eat less,” which would bring expenses down.

Trump’s economic team is divided between hard-line conservative Republicans and the MAGA right. Bessent follows the lead of Elon Musk and DOGE, seeing budget and tax cuts as the way forward. No doubt the debt crisis is real, and the deficit needs to be addressed, but the optics are bad. Trump’s popularity is at an all-time low, and he would be better served if he followed the lead of Glen Campbell to “Try a Little Kindness.”

Again, not all of Trump’s approaches are wrong. But his insistence on tax cuts as a primary stimulus and his reliance on tariffs as a panacea for correcting the deficit are high-risk. The country is very different than 2016, and Trump and many of his critics, such as Charles Schumer, do not recognize the shift.

The “rich” vary in both their wealth and their influence. A million dollars places you in the middle class in the present environment. With trillionaires emerging with super wealth, they challenge economic orthodoxy. For every dollar they contribute, they want two back. Ask Elon Musk or David Sacks, high-tech moguls. They have so much money that they can really afford to be picky with their investments. They have enough to swamp their competitors if they just drew in the bank’s interest.

Compare that to young couples and those aged 40 to 50 who have substantial debt. They live well, but they also are perilously close to the edge. Add to this those who live from paycheck to paycheck, who pay as high as fifty thousand dollars for a car, and heaven knows how much for a house. Not to mention rents, and you have problems. Plutocracy does not give what it does not want to give amidst a growing social crisis.

Of course, conservatives can argue with some justice that they did not expand the welfare state as vigorously as the previous administration. They have consistently decried the “free lunch,” but this argument is diluted by tax cuts and growing military budgets. Either way, austerity and breakaway government spending will not do the trick. The question may be: “What will?”

That is a tough one to respond to. However, those who lecture people to “eat less” or curb their aspirations might be smashing into a wall of change. Each generation has its own ambitions, and there is no exception. College degrees, large houses, and pricey jobs are also evident in a particular segment of the post-baby boom generation; lecturing them will not suffice. The same impulses that led them to vote for Trump one cycle and then for Zohran Mamdani the next should give pause. To react flippantly to people’s desires tempts the furies.